Mod The Sims - UNReligion Thread: Atheism, Etc.

Oaktree

25th Sep 2010, 3:05 PM

I, too, object to separating this topic from the other religion threads, but I'll post here since HP has final say on this site.

Continued from "All Other Religions":

Which, funnily enough, is just like the Jeudo-Christian God. The thing about that, is "infinite existence" is impossible. There HAS to be a beginning, to everything. There absolutely must be, even if it just pops out from a complete and true lack of existence.

I don't see how it's anything like the Judeo-Christian God. If the universe periodically expands and shrinks, it is simply energy going through motions. I don't see why the universe can't be infinite. For one, if there was a creator, the creator must also be infinitely old. No matter what you think the history of the universe looks like, there has to be something that was around an infinite period of time ago, even if it is just a sort of potential for the creation of energy and matter. I contend that whatever was around was not sapient. There are too many things that don't line up with our descriptions of a sapient being who creates the universe. It is still possible that there is some sort of deistic reality, in which a super-sapient being created the universe, but has nothing to do with it and has none of the characteristics assigned by various religions to it. I think that it is more likely that it isn't sapient.

AH! Untrue! It already has impacted our reality! Just the mere thought of the possibility is enough to impact us! Art, music, poetry, literature, culture, all of that has been impacted by the mere concept of a transcendent reality, regardless of the truth of it.

I think the problem here is you are trying to apply an aspect of one situation, imposing it onto other situation where it does not quite work that way.

To put it simply, sciences affect our reality through foresight. Religion and philosophy and such affect our reality through hindsight, I guess you could say.

However, ideas of transmigration, such as into Heaven, are also of affect our realities through foresight. Because you want to transcend, so you will do things to try to guarantee that that is what will happen. That you'll have peace after death.

The idea of something might have a real impact, but that does not mean that it is an expression of truth. In this case, rather than transcendent reality being the thing affecting reality, it is the human thought of the idea of transcendent reality. Thought need not line up with reality. If it did, we should have or have had mythical creatures roaming the earth, such as the aforementioned unicorns prancing down the street. If human thought equated to truth, we would either have a much stranger reality than we do, or we wouldn't be capable of creativity, because our thoughts would have to line up with reality at all times. Neither is the case.

See, and this the thing. It's really not. But, at the same time, it's not really something easily explained. I think it's more like, you really don't understand it. And we really can't explain it. Because we don't make random things up. I doubt anywhere, short of a complete psychotic, you'll find someone who truly believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who truly believes in Cthulhu, who truly believes, uh, in Lolth. It just doesn't work that way. But it's like explaining the inner workings of the deepest aspects of the human mind. It's nowhere near easy, and unless you really experience it and find understand for yourself, you probably won't get it at all. You just really won't understand.

And the same applies towards, as well. There some people, some atheists, anti-theists, whatever, who say things I really just do not get at all, and will probably never understand.

The only difference is that the thing you believe is passed down through generations, though I will provide you of an example of a religion that is much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in that it is recent and made up from the mind of it's creator: scientology. If you were a scientologist, you would believe in the made up account that L. Ron Hubbard gives, while everyone else would see the evidence against your religion, such as the fact that L. Ron Hubbard made it up as a joke. That record is still around, so we ridicule scientology, as there is evidence that it is simply made up. The record of the people who wrote the Bible and other religious books/tenants is no longer around, so we can't see the human motivations of those people, so it is a bit harder to ridicule them. It is still very likely that other religions were made up by some person or group of people, but those who choose to believe in religion can feel safe in the knowledge that there is no direct proof decrying the origins of their religion. Though, considering scientology, it seems that people don't even need that much.

But there is; your experiences, your thoughts, your beliefs, your affiliations, etc, you yourself, is strictly "yours." Yes, you can share similar beliefs and experiences, but you're not, uh, you're not fusing them together, you're not experiencing each other like you guys switched bodies or something, your experiences are solely yours. By "sharing" them, all that means is reciting them for someone else to understand.

Your very perception of the world is your reality. There isn't one singular reality, there's many. Yeah, we share a material reality; if there is a table in the middle of the room, we both see it, we can both feel it, we can both physically perceive it with our sense. However! We can disagree on the kind of wood its made of, we can describe it differently, and we can both firmly believe that we are right. Those are two different realities amongst two different people. If you say it's oak, and I say it's hickory, you may think I am wrong, because in your reality, you are right, it is oak. And it won't change until we can truly prove that it is either oak or hickory (and some people, even then, they won't change their mind).

As you pointed out, we still share a physical reality, though. Brain-body duality is a ridiculous concept, considering that there are physical realities that line up with how the brain works. To say that the things in your mind are a separate reality is to say that there is some aspect of your mind removed from physical reality. You can have your own subjective thoughts and perceptions of the world, but they do not equate to truth, even if you believe them. In the case of two people disagreeing on the composition of a table, one or both is wrong.

...and are you suggesting photons and the likes have some form of consciousness?

No, I'm suggesting that consciousness consists of a variety of traits that can be derived from highly ordered energy. Have you ever heard of Emergence? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)

Lastly, I know I am far from the best person to say this. I have my outbursts, and they are often fueled on emotion. But, I agree with fakepeeps. It's not about you guys having a contradictory position. It's the attitude you will sometimes present it with. An attitude of self-assurance. "I am right. You are wrong and your beliefs are ridiculous." I'm not going to say you guys do it all the time, but it does come out every now and then. And it's often very casual. Look, I know I have my outbursts, and when I do, I think it's obvious I'm pissed off. But when you guys come across as you sometimes do, it's much more subtle, and it gives us a feeling of being snubbed or being patronized. I think that is what she means. That you guys come across to us at times, as coming onto these topics simply to demonstrate rather that discuss, like a Christian who'll go into a random topic and go on about how "You should all learn from God," and when someone tries to discuss it with them in a different opinion, this person simply dismisses them as "confused" or whatever.

I haven't been dismissing discussion. I typically address every or nearly every point that I disagree with. I use logic, which is my way of respecting the intelligence of other debaters. I'm not passing things down on authority, expecting that everyone will simply believe me. I'm making logical arguments that any other logical human being could follow. That other logical human being won't necessarily come to the same conclusions I do, but at least he/she can understand where I'm coming from. I hate to say it, but I think that religious people are more arrogant in this regard. They pass down things on authority of their god(s), leaving those of us who don't believe in that god to wonder how someone can come to such conclusions. Any debate in this manner is almost worthless, as it comes down to two people simply talking at each other, with little to no progress on understanding the ideas of the other or discovering truth.

Rectos Dominos

25th Sep 2010, 5:19 PM

From what I read an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any force or spirit. An agnostic is a person who somewhat believes is a kind of a force that created everything but it's not a God as such. Correct me if I'm wrong.

An agnostic questions the existence of deity but unlike atheists they don't entirely dismiss the idea of a supreme being. They generally feel that we (humans) have no way of knowing weither one exists or not.

A deist does believe in god but is not part of any religion.

Nekowolf

25th Sep 2010, 5:53 PM

Cause I don't feel like quoting it all:

1. One if the criticism I sometimes here is the concept of infinite existence. That's what I was referring to; if the universe can have infinite existence, then so can some god.

If anything, that idea makes a deity even MORE likely, as I see it. Though, I would like to hear more theories on this idea that the universe has simply "always existed." I find it much more likely that within the primordial beginnings of the universe, physics as we know it did not apply; rather, it was doing things in a very different way, and eventually evolved into the physics we have now, probably through stabilization of the universe or something.

2. Your original comment expressed nothing about "truth," simply that a transcendent reality did not have an effect on us right now. As such, I'm going to avoid a direct answer, as the truth of a transcendent reality or anything like that is unknown to me as it is to everyone; I cannot possibly answer it in any satisfactory way unless I want to proclaim knowledge that I do not have.

3. I must make a quote here.

The only difference is that the thing you believe is passed down through generations - except that is not true. Many pagans were not taught paganism for previous generations, no. We found it ourselves. My immediate family is, I would say, agnostic secular. I'm not really sure of their views, but I did not grow up in a religious setting of any kind. My Heathenry wasn't "passed down" to me in any way. I wouldn't expect you to really understand, but, I am a Heathen because, well, I am drawn to it. It feels so very natural. This is not exclusive to paganism, either; there are Christians and others who feel the same way towards their religion. They chose it specifically because of something inside of them.

This is partly what irks me about kiwi's comments. It's not like we wake up and are suddenly like, "I think I'll be a Heathen!" just like how gays don't wake up and are suddenly "I think I'll be homosexual!" I cannot make that any clearer.

Oh, and Scientology is a really poor example. Religions, well, most anyway, they're not some guy, or a group of people, who just think up of stuff off the top of their heads. They evolved with the evolution of cultures and thought. Yes, the Bible was chosen by a group of men, but Christianity in itself evolved from Judaism, which evolved from paleopaganism.

4. So, wait. Consciousness is energy, or at least, partly made up of energy? I'm still not quite seeing the point of the original comment (though, I'll have to go back and reread, as I have already forgotten what it was).

fakepeeps7

25th Sep 2010, 7:09 PM

Though, I would like to hear more theories on this idea that the universe has simply "always existed." I find it much more likely that within the primordial beginnings of the universe, physics as we know it did not apply; rather, it was doing things in a very different way, and eventually evolved into the physics we have now, probably through stabilization of the universe or something.

I think that's assuming that time is actually the way we observe it to be. Maybe time as we know it started with our current universe... and before that, time didn't actually exist. So there could be a "beginning" and a "before"... but only with respect to this one universe. Maybe it's just one floating in a timeless soup of potentiality. (Kind of makes your brain hurt, doesn't it?)

Many pagans were not taught paganism for previous generations, no. We found it ourselves. My immediate family is, I would say, agnostic secular. I'm not really sure of their views, but I did not grow up in a religious setting of any kind.

I'm the same way (although I'm not pagan). My parents didn't want to push any religion on me. We didn't even go to church when I was a kid. There seem to be some uber-religious folks in the family tree (including a number of missionaries), but all of that seems to have fallen away with the migration to North America. I don't think any of my grandparents attended church (at least, not in their later years). So a belief in Christianity wasn't "passed down"... at least, not to me. I've got one cousin who is "born-again", but she's the only one in an otherwise secular family and it was her choice.

You can have your own subjective thoughts and perceptions of the world, but they do not equate to truth, even if you believe them. In the case of two people disagreeing on the composition of a table, one or both is wrong.

What if, instead, you're arguing about the nature of light? Particle or wave? If one person believes it's behaving like particles and another believes it's behaving like waves... aren't they both partially right, even if their views are only based on their subjective perspective?

kiwi_tea

26th Sep 2010, 12:50 AM

My Heathenry wasn't "passed down" to me in any way. I wouldn't expect you to really understand, but, I am a Heathen because, well, I am drawn to it. It feels so very natural. This is not exclusive to paganism, either; there are Christians and others who feel the same way towards their religion. They chose it specifically because of something inside of them.

This is partly what irks me about kiwi's comments. It's not like we wake up and are suddenly like, "I think I'll be a Heathen!" just like how gays don't wake up and are suddenly "I think I'll be homosexual!" I cannot make that any clearer.

You choose it, gradually. Religions evolve gradually, out of mutual invention and mutual misinterpretation. You were taught it by people in writing and in speech. It might "feel" "natural". So? It's still artificial. It's still an arbitrary choice. It's still not something you're condemned to.

What if, instead, you're arguing about the nature of light? Particle or wave? If one person believes it's behaving like particles and another believes it's behaving like waves... aren't they both partially right, even if their views are only based on their subjective perspective?

Whoa. What kind of point are you trying to make with this?

Nekowolf

26th Sep 2010, 2:03 AM

You choose it, gradually. Religions evolve gradually, out of mutual invention and mutual misinterpretation. You were taught it by people in writing and in speech. It might "feel" "natural". So? It's still artificial. It's still an arbitrary choice. It's still not something you're condemned to.
Yes. I did "choose" it, in the most liberal meaning of the word.

Now, to be honest, I'm not certain if you are saying I, specifically, was "taught it by people in writing and in speech," so I'm just going to go with that.

No. No, I wasn't. I discovered it completely on my own, educating myself on my own. The most help I gotten was from authors, living or dead, who have recorded in writing what I read. All the rest was all me. Now, that is just me, specifically. Otherwise, when being raised in, say, a family who pulls you into their faith, then I would be much more inclined to agree with you in that case.

But anyway, it's a part of who I am. It's like my taste in music, or the foods I like, or what hobbies I enjoy. If you want to define those as "choices" as well, feel free.

As for fakepeeps, I believe she's saying the world is not so black and white, to put it in a very simple context.

kiwi_tea

26th Sep 2010, 2:33 AM

The most help I gotten was from authors, living or dead, who have recorded in writing what I read.

That's exactly what I meant. Although, even if you'd have invented it, you ruin it by believing it instead of just enjoying it as a fiction. You elevate to the level of a knowledge, instead of an invention.

Nekowolf

26th Sep 2010, 2:39 AM

Whatever, dude. I don't really have anything more to say that wouldn't come off as, well, never mind.

kiwi_tea

26th Sep 2010, 2:49 AM

So in other words, your entire defence is a grumpy self-righteousness. Calm down. Think of a good, solid argument. Then use it. If there isn't one, just anger, impatience and incoherence, don't you think you need to reevaluate something about your stance?

Why do you find it impossible to offer a defence without resorting to this frequent evasion: "I'd say something, but it'd just be an insult"?

Nekowolf

26th Sep 2010, 3:09 AM

Self-righteousness? No. I don't feel superior to you or anyone else here.

And because there is no defense that would be adequate to the scope of which you view religion and faith. Science and faith, they are apples and oranges. Science is science, and faith is faith. But they are not mutually exclusive either; you can take the apple and the orange and make starfruit.* "Oh but the scientific method!" Yeah. Scientific method. It's meant for science, it's meant for the observable and the understandable.

We cannot "research" the nature of deities, nor their existence. We cannot make observations if they are real or not. It is like asking to observe "an idea." You cannot do it. You cannot physically observe an idea.

But anyway, you want to know why I am so irked? Because I don't see a god damn discussion. What I see is you coming into religion topics not with the intention of discussion but with the intention to prove a point; that religion is false, that it is fantasy. Yeah, we get it. How many times are you going to repeat it? You know what, maybe this topic is good? Because every time you feel the urge to have to go into how religion is fantasy, we actually have a place to point to and say "take it there."

Grumpy, yes. Self-righteous? No. Just really irritated by what I see as nothing more but a lack of interest, aside from letting us with faith all know that you believe religion is fake.

*I've had starfruit before; it, like, has the texture of an apple with the taste of an orange

kiwi_tea

26th Sep 2010, 3:21 AM

Are these debate forums, or discussion forums? If you just want to freely pontificate about your personal imaginings of what a deity might be ad nauseum, why are you in a debate thread? Why are these threads stickied in a Debate Forum and not a General Discussion one?

Cos that might very well be part of the problem here.

But they are not mutually exclusive either; you can take the apple and the orange and make starfruit.

That example is perfect for describing your stance precisely because in a shallow way it's appealing, but fundamentally it's absolute rubbish. Go make a starfruit out of an apple and an orange. See how you go.

Oaktree

26th Sep 2010, 3:32 AM

2. Your original comment expressed nothing about "truth," simply that a transcendent reality did not have an effect on us right now. As such, I'm going to avoid a direct answer, as the truth of a transcendent reality or anything like that is unknown to me as it is to everyone; I cannot possibly answer it in any satisfactory way unless I want to proclaim knowledge that I do not have.

Truth has everything to do with it, though. Religions try to pass on truth and explanations of observations. The point that I'm making is that religion is not a reliable means of finding truth. There's also the matter of the truth value of the existence of god(s). The evidence does not support the existence of god(s), so it is unlikely to be true.

- except that is not true. Many pagans were not taught paganism for previous generations, no. We found it ourselves. My immediate family is, I would say, agnostic secular. I'm not really sure of their views, but I did not grow up in a religious setting of any kind. My Heathenry wasn't "passed down" to me in any way. I wouldn't expect you to really understand, but, I am a Heathen because, well, I am drawn to it. It feels so very natural. This is not exclusive to paganism, either; there are Christians and others who feel the same way towards their religion. They chose it specifically because of something inside of them.

What I was getting at is that the religion you follow has been around for generations, whether you got it directly from your parents or not.

This is partly what irks me about kiwi's comments. It's not like we wake up and are suddenly like, "I think I'll be a Heathen!" just like how gays don't wake up and are suddenly "I think I'll be homosexual!" I cannot make that any clearer.

You're drawing a poor parallel. Sexuality is an innate biological characteristic, religion must be learned. Sexuality cannot be changed, you have only to watch a born-again evangelist to see that people change religions all the time. It may be that you feel a special connection to your religion, but that religion cannot be a part of your innate nature, as we are not born with religious dogma seared onto our brains.

Oh, and Scientology is a really poor example. Religions, well, most anyway, they're not some guy, or a group of people, who just think up of stuff off the top of their heads. They evolved with the evolution of cultures and thought. Yes, the Bible was chosen by a group of men, but Christianity in itself evolved from Judaism, which evolved from paleopaganism.

How do you know that religions aren't just some guys thinking up stuff off the tops of their heads? You weren't there when the first Heathen passed on the dogma of Heathenism to other Heathens. You weren't there when God supposedly passed down the word to man. You weren't there for the teachings of the Buddha. You don't know the motives of the people involved, or whether any god actually showed up to reveal divine knowledge. If you are referring to the level of thought put into a religion, I'm sure L. Ron Hubbard put a lot of thought into his religion. His aim was to use the persuasive elements present in other religions to create his own (initially for the sake of experimentation, though he later embraced his role in scientology). He had to have thought hard enough to figure out what it is that persuades people into a religion, because he was successful at creating a cult of fanatics. No matter how much thought is put into something, if it isn't true, it isn't true.

4. So, wait. Consciousness is energy, or at least, partly made up of energy? I'm still not quite seeing the point of the original comment (though, I'll have to go back and reread, as I have already forgotten what it was).

Energy forms matter, matter organizes into neurons and neurotransmitters, neurons and neurotransmitters come together in vast networks, and - voila! - cognition. The point of the original comment was that you were arguing from the standpoint of a Cartesian dualist, one who considers mind and body to be separate things with separate realities. I was arguing that there is no need for a separate reality of thought, as thought can be explained pretty well in terms of this reality.

What if, instead, you're arguing about the nature of light? Particle or wave? If one person believes it's behaving like particles and another believes it's behaving like waves... aren't they both partially right, even if their views are only based on their subjective perspective?

Light doesn't behave like particles and waves at the same time. It behaves as a wave most of the time, and behaves as a particle under certain conditions. The conditions in which the light is observed determine which is right. Two people observing the same packet of light energy would not observe different states of the light, though. If they looked at the light at the exact same time and position, each would observe one state or the other and they would be in agreement.

A similar comparison can be made when talking about caterpillars and butterflies. The same insect can be one or the other, but two people observing the same insect at the same time would not observe different states.

Nekowolf

26th Sep 2010, 3:58 AM

@Oaktree

Again, I'll just do the numerical thing.

1. That's oversimplifying things. Not all religion is about that, though. Especially faiths born of this new wave of pagan revival, where focus on the "truth" and such is of a much less concern than, say, traditional Catholicism.

2. Oh. I still don't see what that really has to do with anything, though. So it's been around a while. So what?

3. That is so not the point of what I said. Nor how do you know? Sure, we're not "born" with it, but it certainly can be developed into us as a part of our nature later on.

4. Oh god. You know, it's just like how cultures change. I'm not going to sit here and explain this; I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out.

5. I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about souls or a literal "reality." Rather, that what we interpret for ourselves belong only to ourselves; that we as individuals have our own unique thoughts and lives; that's what I meant. Our realities are different. We share a material world, but we do not share minds, like some kind of hive-mind. Instead, our minds are possessed only by the individual person that mind belongs to.

Oaktree

26th Sep 2010, 4:25 AM

@ Nekowolf:

1. Explain to me what purpose your religious beliefs serve. I'd like to know, as, from my experience, religion pretty much always seems to posit some sort of "truth".

2. It doesn't have much to do with it, but you misunderstood my original post, so I was clarifying. I simply said that your religion has been around longer than some idea that might randomly occur to someone, but it doesn't give it any more credibility.

3. If it is not something that you are born with, it is something that is either impressed upon you or a choice. If you choose to follow an unevidenced religion, I think it is a poor choice. If it is impressed upon you, I feel a little sorry for you, though even people who are brainwashed into following a particular religion as a child are capable of evaluating their beliefs at some point and casting them off.

4. I really don't know what you're getting at here. One flawed set of beliefs developed off of another set of flawed beliefs doesn't reach truth. When Ptolemy built a cosmological model based on the flawed physics of the Greeks, his model wasn't true because his assumptions were false.

5. We have our own individual thoughts, but those thoughts that are meant to represent facts about the world must still be compared to the world in order to be determined true or false. There are true facts about our shared reality, while there are conceptions of facts about the world, which may or may not be true, in our individual perceptions. Our individual perceptions can still be considered right or wrong because they are tied to the shared reality.

ElementMK

26th Sep 2010, 5:10 AM

Subway still arranges their cheese in a manner that does not tessellate. If that's not evidence that there isn't a God, I don't know what is.

Nekowolf

26th Sep 2010, 10:47 AM

1. Purpose? I can't say it has any purpose other than that I believe in it in some context. Those with a "purpose" seem to be, if anything, the monotheist faiths; they seem to be the ones who have the biggest concept of "purpose."

I ask, you say "in your experience," but just how many faiths do you know of in our experience? Not just mere basics, but like their communities and practitioners? How many of them were not monotheist faiths? How much communication have you had with them?

3. *sighes* I'm not going to explain it again.

"It's a choice."
"Yes, but-"
"No buts. It's a choice."
"In a way, however it is still a part of my-"
"It's a choice."

God. You know what. You're not the one who is experiencing it, alright? Don't go around telling me this crap when you don't ever get it. Your mind is set and it won't change. Just like those who believe homosexuality is a choice. But now you'll probably go into how that's a poor comparison and- you know what, shut it. That's not the freaking point here, and either you know it, or you're not thinking about it hard enough to see it.

5. Forget it. Once again, I'm not going to re-explain everything. You're just looking at things in black and white.

StarboardParoxysm

26th Sep 2010, 3:45 PM

Be kind, courteous, and respectful toward your fellow debaters, no matter what they believe!

This means:

Taking their arguments seriously, even if you don't agree.

Responding in a respectful manner - do not be condescending, rude, inflammatory, ridiculing, or insulting. Tone matters.

Don't be a jerk.

Do not use excessive profanity (yes, you can swear - no, you can't swear -at- people - if you don't know the difference then don't swear).

Not taking things personally.

Not making personal attacks.

Debating the topic - not the debaters. Focus on your point, not the people involved. If you find yourself using the word "you" a lot in your posts, look at your points made - has it become more about the individual than not? If that's the case, rephrase and rework your argument.

Remembering that it's a debate - you're not supposed to agree or it would be boring. The point is not to make everyone agree with you but to make well-reasoned and thought-out points based on your position.

If you are getting upset and cannot follow any or all of the above points, then DO NOT POST. Step away from the thread, go do something else, and come back when you can be cool-headed. If you cannot do that, then you need to remove yourself from the thread.

Fresh blood...

In light of the above points and the fact that tempers have flared a bit here...

If you have posted on this thread or the All Other Religions thread in the past 24 hours, you may not post again on either thread for at least 24 hours from now. Take a break, let some other folks make some points, and come back with a cool head.

And if you can't...

If you choose to ignore this message, or if you come back after 24 hours and cannot stick to being kind, courteous, and respectful toward your fellow debaters, you may be asked not to post on this and/or other threads in the Debate Room again. We don't like to thread/forum ban people but we will if their presence is disruptive and causes us to write big long tealdeer posts with lots of purple text.

If any part of this is unclear, please contact me via PM and I will be happy to explain further.

modfanatic

27th Sep 2010, 4:21 PM

I've read that atheism is a faith, it worships materialism (which most people would think is just dumb).

StarboardParoxysm

27th Sep 2010, 4:34 PM

Oaktree

27th Sep 2010, 5:16 PM

1. Purpose? I can't say it has any purpose other than that I believe in it in some context. Those with a "purpose" seem to be, if anything, the monotheist faiths; they seem to be the ones who have the biggest concept of "purpose."

What I mean is, why do you follow the particular religion you do? If you don't have empirical evidence of the truth of it, what motivates you to believe in it at all?

I ask, you say "in your experience," but just how many faiths do you know of in our experience? Not just mere basics, but like their communities and practitioners? How many of them were not monotheist faiths? How much communication have you had with them?

I have encountered people of the three main monotheistic religions (and probably the full spectrum of Christian denominations), Buddhism, Wicca, Satanism, Pantheism, Jainism, Baha'i, and those with a general feeling that there is something greater. I have spoken at length with people about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Baha'i and Pantheism. I have read about, in varying degrees, all of the above, Hinduism, Shintoism, Druidism, and various ancient pantheons of deities. All of these religions seem to have some sort of purpose to their tenants. Ancient religions typically tried to explain the world, modern monotheistic religions seem to focus on morals and achieving the best possible afterlife, and most other religions seem to have some sort of enlightenment in mind.

3. *sighes* I'm not going to explain it again.

"It's a choice."
"Yes, but-"
"No buts. It's a choice."
"In a way, however it is still a part of my-"
"It's a choice."

God. You know what. You're not the one who is experiencing it, alright? Don't go around telling me this crap when you don't ever get it. Your mind is set and it won't change. Just like those who believe homosexuality is a choice. But now you'll probably go into how that's a poor comparison and- you know what, shut it. That's not the freaking point here, and either you know it, or you're not thinking about it hard enough to see it.

My point is that you're making a choice that is not based in evidence. Typically, those sorts of choices are not wise. I can understand the feeling of religious experience, as it is an emotion that is hardwired into the brain and can be triggered by non-religious things. What I don't understand is the belief in unsupported claims.

5. Forget it. Once again, I'm not going to re-explain everything. You're just looking at things in black and white.

I understand that you're saying that personal experience varies from person to person. What I'm saying is that personal feeling does not provide evidence for claims about the world. When you say that you worship a particular deity, you are saying that that deity exists. If the existence of that deity cannot be supported through empirical evidence, it is unlikely that your claim to the existence of that deity is correct. Can you understand that you are essentially trying to make an objective claim when you claim to follow a particular religion? As much as you favor subjectivity, once you try to state something as true, you are in the realm of objectivity.

modfanatic

27th Sep 2010, 5:48 PM

Modfanatic, if you keep it up you will no longer be welcome to participate in debates here. You have been asked before to make a decently well-reasoned argument - not just a single sentence or a handful of sentences. You cannot continue to just drop in, post something that is insulting (atheists = materialistic = dumb), and expect that to work as part of a discussion.

As I said before, it is not aimed to offend the people with the belief but it is to offend the idea.

Also, I am not often comfortable with making or reading extremely long posts, I prefer to be brief.

StarboardParoxysm

27th Sep 2010, 5:58 PM

Modfanatic - Since you apparently can't see how calling someone's beliefs materialistic and dumb is offensive and insulting, and aren't willing to make decently thought-out and explained arguments that are more than a bumper sticker slapped on a complex subject, please do not post in the Debate Room anymore unless you're willing to, um... actually do those things what I said.

fakepeeps7

27th Sep 2010, 6:40 PM

Whoa. What kind of point are you trying to make with this?

My point was in response to Oaktree's comment:

You can have your own subjective thoughts and perceptions of the world, but they do not equate to truth, even if you believe them. In the case of two people disagreeing on the composition of a table, one or both is wrong.

My point was also not about two people observing light at the same time (and therefore observing the same thing), but two people arguing over their general ideas about the nature of light. If one person has only ever observed light as particles and the other has only ever observed it as waves, they're going to draw conclusions based on their personal observations and disagree about light's true nature.

I was just trying to make an analogy, which seems to be a fruitless task in a forum where everything is nitpicked to death.

How about the story about the blind men and the elephant? Or the Allegory of the Cave? We don't know if what we're observing when we do scientific experiments is the "truth". We might just be seeing shadows on a wall or feeling a very small part of the elephant. Everything is highly subjective simply because we can't magically "know" things; we have to make conclusions based on our own experiences (and experiments). And those conclusions can be affected by so many variables that it's kind of presumptuous to think that we know everything that's going on, to the point that we can conclusively rule things out based on a simple lack of evidence.

Petchy

27th Sep 2010, 6:41 PM

I personally believe that Atheism is a religion in itself; one which follows the spectrum of peer-to-peer known Human intelligence. That means it's based on what one can See, Hear, Touch, Not See, Not Hear, Not Touch... That stuff. Am I explaining myself correctly?
What I do think is crude in the matter is when some people come across as being "Non-Religious"; The Idea of "Religion is pathetic" and active methods and arguments to undermine those who are of a Faith are an Oxymoron, if you ask me. To myself, Atheism is a different tree in the vineyard, with it's own roots and branches [just like Christianity and Buddhism.] I don't quite understand how some can see things on a lateral 0 - 1 scale with religion in general. It's more like a Bouncy ball which goes into a Slot, or even slots. Oh, and "Religion is Icky" is silly. Faith is a better word, because it's [to me] impossible to truly NOT believe in ANYTHING. You'd.. well, go insane, I guess. Imagine thinking that nothing was real, your senses were lies, and it were all a dream? Oh wait, then you'd be believing in that then.. urgh, It's near impossible to cut a strait path.
What I also dislike is the Stereotype that Science =/> Religion. Or, alternatively, Religion =/> Science. Just like how Physics dabbles in Chemistry, and Art Dabbles in Poetry, Religion and Science have a Huge Overlap to be explored and shown in a more positive light.

These are what I think on the matter: I don't think it could be perceived rude or insulting, but if you think I've made an error then feel free to explore the ideas.

Nekowolf

27th Sep 2010, 6:48 PM

@Oaktree

1. Well to simplify it into a single sentence:

"I don't know."

But I do anyway. It's like asking why I love the person I do, or why I like certain genres, or a lot other similar things. You can give specific things you like about them, but not why you like them. You just do, and it's just a part of you.

But if you were to ask "why not other faiths," the same answer. Why don't I like country music? I can tell you things I don't like about it, but not as to why.

You may see it as easy to be an atheist, but that's only because who you are. Instead, think of yourself being a Christian or something. It's easy to imagine that it's easy to believe what you personally believe in, because it makes sense to you, but that can be quite contrary to others.

2.

Ancient religions typically tried to explain the world, modern monotheistic religions seem to focus on morals and achieving the best possible afterlife, and most other religions seem to have some sort of enlightenment in mind.
Completely agree on monotheism. And I agree that others are more about enlightenment.

Paganism is much harder to define. We are not the ancient faiths. We may share their gods and ceremonies, but we generally do not share their knowledge of the world in the context of what it was in those times. We understand the world through the sciences. I would say, generally, neopaganism is more about enlightenment. In a sense. I don't think that's quite the right word to use, though. How to put it...

It's not really about enlightenment of the mind. It's not so much about seeking "truth" or whatever. It's more about enlightenment of life. The focus in a lot of neopaganism isn't about "truth" or even a lot of times, about what comes after death. Take Christianity; it has all the sins and stuff, and this horrific punishment (Hell), y'know, all these things that prevent from getting into Heaven, or even being condemned to Hell. All these sins and rules.

Neopaganism is more like, screw that. Sure, the old faiths usually have some kind of punishment after death, yeah. But there's not all these sins and rules. It's more like, don't be a jackass, and don't commit crimes (such as rape, murder, stealing, etc; things generally consider throughout civilization as bad). Basically, as long as you're not like that, don't worry about it, enjoy life as is. That has much more weight than what you sometimes see in the Abrahamic faiths, where this life isn't all that important, it's the next life.

So getting back to the point, we know the Sun is a giant flaming ball of gas and nuclear fusion. We know the Moon circles the Earth through gravity just as the Earth circles the Sun. We know lightning is a discharge of electricity created through molecular friction. We're not reverting back to that, rather, we're adopting their pantheons and festivals and such from them.

3. "My point is that you're making a choice that is not based in evidence." - I'm not saying we are. Just that to us, it really doesn't matter, anyway. It's sort of half-empty/half-full. You can look at it either way, but no matter what, it's always empty-ish and full-ish. Then there's some like myself who are more like, "it's both, so what? Seeing it as one or the other is missing the point of the glass itself."

"What I don't understand is the belief in unsupported claims." - It's not really something anyone understands, even those who are believers it something don't understand it, really. There's plenty of excuses, but no one really gets it. Sort of like yawning; no one really knows why we do it, but do it anyway. Best just to find the place that fits you and accept whatever it is.

4. "When you say that you worship a particular deity, you are saying that that deity exists." - Now that would be correct, traditionally, but not so much anymore. We're at a point of spiritual progression where you actually still "believe" in deities, but not in a physical sense like is traditionally presented. You could still worship the gods believing that they don't have physical form, but rather, are representative. Think about this for a moment; every god in polytheistic faiths are gods of "something." It was only until monotheism came did this start to change, because monotheism was something new. Now, they were partially gods of "something" because they did not understand back then what we know now. They took their representations more literally. But if you move away from that literalness, they are still representatives of aspects of nature, or something universal, or something exclusive of humanity.

We are not following traditions, we are breaking traditions, with a new-ish (within the last 50 years, but really taking an upturn much more recently thanks to the Internet), though still somewhat small (but slowly growing), movement.

Oaktree

27th Sep 2010, 8:26 PM

My point was in response to Oaktree's comment:

You can have your own subjective thoughts and perceptions of the world, but they do not equate to truth, even if you believe them. In the case of two people disagreeing on the composition of a table, one or both is wrong.

My point was also not about two people observing light at the same time (and therefore observing the same thing), but two people arguing over their general ideas about the nature of light. If one person has only ever observed light as particles and the other has only ever observed it as waves, they're going to draw conclusions based on their personal observations and disagree about light's true nature.

I was just trying to make an analogy, which seems to be a fruitless task in a forum where everything is nitpicked to death.

How about the story about the blind men and the elephant? Or the Allegory of the Cave? We don't know if what we're observing when we do scientific experiments is the "truth". We might just be seeing shadows on a wall or feeling a very small part of the elephant. Everything is highly subjective simply because we can't magically "know" things; we have to make conclusions based on our own experiences (and experiments). And those conclusions can be affected by so many variables that it's kind of presumptuous to think that we know everything that's going on, to the point that we can conclusively rule things out based on a simple lack of evidence.

In that case, if each person claims that light is one but not the other, both are wrong. Light has objective characteristics. A subjective view that is based on evidence, but not enough evidence, is still wrong. To return to my earlier mention of Greek astronomy, Ptolemy used precise calculations of the relative movement of the stars to create his model of the cosmos. He had information, but not enough information to make an accurate picture, no matter how well his model lines up to appearances.

I agree that we can't have direct knowledge of the nature of reality, that all of our ideas are based on flawed perceptions. Flawed perceptions that come to a certain conclusion are still almost always more reliable than an idea based on no sensory evidence.

EDIT: I should clarify that last part. It is certainly possible to come to a correct conclusion without evidence, but it can't contradict other observable things. The Atomists of Ancient Greece were correct in their hypothesis that things are made up of microscopic, indivisible subunits (though the particle that was later named after their school of thought was later found to be divisible into smaller particles). When Pauling and Corey determined the secondary structure of proteins based on theoretical hydrogen bonding, they were correct, even though the secondary structure of proteins had not yet been observed (am I going too far over everyone's head with that one?). There have been plenty of examples throughout history of people making very good extrapolations from their observations to correctly describe something not yet observed. These discoveries were based partly in empirical data, though. They were not self-contradictory or contradictory to observation of nature. Many religions are one or both.

I personally believe that Atheism is a religion in itself; one which follows the spectrum of peer-to-peer known Human intelligence. That means it's based on what one can See, Hear, Touch, Not See, Not Hear, Not Touch... That stuff. Am I explaining myself correctly?
What I do think is crude in the matter is when some people come across as being "Non-Religious"; The Idea of "Religion is pathetic" and active methods and arguments to undermine those who are of a Faith are an Oxymoron, if you ask me. To myself, Atheism is a different tree in the vineyard, with it's own roots and branches [just like Christianity and Buddhism.] I don't quite understand how some can see things on a lateral 0 - 1 scale with religion in general. It's more like a Bouncy ball which goes into a Slot, or even slots. Oh, and "Religion is Icky" is silly. Faith is a better word, because it's [to me] impossible to truly NOT believe in ANYTHING. You'd.. well, go insane, I guess. Imagine thinking that nothing was real, your senses were lies, and it were all a dream? Oh wait, then you'd be believing in that then.. urgh, It's near impossible to cut a strait path.
What I also dislike is the Stereotype that Science =/> Religion. Or, alternatively, Religion =/> Science. Just like how Physics dabbles in Chemistry, and Art Dabbles in Poetry, Religion and Science have a Huge Overlap to be explored and shown in a more positive light.

These are what I think on the matter: I don't think it could be perceived rude or insulting, but if you think I've made an error then feel free to explore the ideas.

Atheism/non-theism is a lack of religious belief, or faith, if you prefer. There are some people who try to convince people not to believe in religion, but, when they are arguing properly, those people argue based in logic, rather than authority. Religion typically argues on authority. There are some atheists who argue based in personal feeling, which, in some sense can be compared to religious sentiment, but still isn't a direct comparison. Religious sentiment is based in personal feeling, though most people have plenty of non-religious beliefs that are also based in personal feeling.

I think it is quite possible to not believe in unevidenced claims. To some extent, even evidence does not equate to proof, so, yes, people do need to have a certain level of faith in empirical reality, but it is quite a different animal from believing in unevidenced things.

I don't understand where you are coming from when you claim that religion and faith are tied together. There are some people who incorporate science into their religious beliefs, but science has no need for religion.

4. "When you say that you worship a particular deity, you are saying that that deity exists." - Now that would be correct, traditionally, but not so much anymore. We're at a point of spiritual progression where you actually still "believe" in deities, but not in a physical sense like is traditionally presented. You could still worship the gods believing that they don't have physical form, but rather, are representative. Think about this for a moment; every god in polytheistic faiths are gods of "something." It was only until monotheism came did this start to change, because monotheism was something new. Now, they were partially gods of "something" because they did not understand back then what we know now. They took their representations more literally. But if you move away from that literalness, they are still representatives of aspects of nature, or something universal, or something exclusive of humanity.

We are not following traditions, we are breaking traditions, with a new-ish (within the last 50 years, but really taking an upturn much more recently thanks to the Internet), though still somewhat small (but slowly growing), movement.

So, is it that you simply call natural forces by another name, or do you believe that they are sapient things?

As far as calling natural forces by another name, I really don't care about it if that is what you prefer. It's the same way I don't particular object to Spinoza's pantheism because he is simply calling the universe an object of worship. I don't engage in worship, but I can understand an awe for the universe and don't care if people engage in worship of the universe if it doesn't involve any false beliefs.

I don't agree with personification of the universe, as the universe functions in very orderly ways that do not require a conscious agent and, in fact, seem to contradict the idea of a conscious agent altering the course of events.

Whiterudder

27th Sep 2010, 10:14 PM

Atheism/non-theism is a lack of religious belief, or faith, if you prefer. There are some people who try to convince people not to believe in religion, but, when they are arguing properly, those people argue based in logic, rather than authority. Religion typically argues on authority. There are some atheists who argue based in personal feeling, which, in some sense can be compared to religious sentiment, but still isn't a direct comparison. Religious sentiment is based in personal feeling, though most people have plenty of non-religious beliefs that are also based in personal feeling.I disagree with you here - atheism is, by those terms, a kind of religion. You point out that religious people often rely on god(s) to give their arguments authority, and that's true; atheists rely on logic to provide that same authority.

In most religious traditions, the god or gods are seen as overarching concepts or entities which hold knowledge of everything, are present in everything, and are not evil (I won't go as far as to say that they are benevolent, as there are many deities who are anything but benevolent). In the same way, logic is a concept which can, in theory, be used to reach knowledge and understanding of anything, and whose rules govern the workings of everything (although we often don't have sufficiently logical minds to perceive the logic in some things). The issue of status as evil is of course irrelevant to an atheist viewpoint.

Now, certainly, the practise of worshipping a deity, and all the sacraments and so on attached are not traits of atheism; but stripping away the religious aspect and focussing on the aspect of faith in an authority, it really is a case of choosing the authority in which (or whom) you are most willing to put your trust, and upon which you are happiest to base your assumptions about life.

Of course, the majority of religious people don't dismiss logic entirely, just as vast numbers of people who put their trust primarily in logic still don't entirely dismiss the potential for divine authority; this isn't a black and white issue, and the influences of various different religious and non-religious authorities can't easily be separated out. I do believe, though, that they effect people's perceptions in similar manners, albeit in different directions.

No doubt there will now be a slew of posts exclaiming that deities cannot possibly compete on a level with logic in this contest - and if that's what you want to post, then nor should they, as you have chosen logic over a deity and that belief is no less firm and ingrained than any belief in a god.

Purity4

27th Sep 2010, 10:18 PM

Atheism is NOT a religion, people. It is lack of theism, lack of belief in a god. Atheism itself is in no way a religion.

Whiterudder

27th Sep 2010, 10:31 PM

Is religion defined by a belief in god, then? What about the use of the term to describe people who, I dunno, organise their taxidermy collections religiously? If religion is synonymous to theism, then what's the distinction between religion, theism, faith, and belief? What about the similarities I pointed out above?

Purity4

27th Sep 2010, 10:45 PM

Yes, religion is defined by a belief in a god. Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)

The word religious describes devotion, beliefs and observances relating to religious beliefs. Religious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious)

The third definition is an adjective describing a behavior as 'like' someone who is religious, being scrupulously and conscientiously faithful. An example in a sentence being 'Sally religiously scrubs her toilet Friday evenings at 10:00 sharp'.

I would not say Sally is religious as a person, but I'd say her toilet cleaning activity is similar to the unwavering, determined beliefs of a person with religious beliefs. I surely hope you see the distinction.

Whiterudder

27th Sep 2010, 11:05 PM

The wikipedia article you linked to defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe"; although religion usually refers to systems which involve gods, gods aren't strictly necessary. It is, though, important to separate the practical meaning of religion (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism) from the conceptual one (a belief system which sets up a framework through which adherents hope to understand life). I was referring to the latter - although it's still not entirely accurate, as religion also involves public manifestations of belief; which is why I simplified my point to address faith rather than religion as a whole.

This is a semantic discussion, though, and I'm more interested in the substance of the comments that have been made so far than the terminology. :)

Nekowolf

27th Sep 2010, 11:14 PM

I think this is an argument of semantics, though. Essentially, it doesn't alter the main point; atheism acts like religion, once you strip away the outer stuff and break it down at the most fundamental level.

EDIT: Ninja'd by whiterider

@Oaktree

So, is it that you simply call natural forces by another name, or do you believe that they are sapient things?
I cannot say. I have no knowledge of their nature. There could be something sapient, or nothing but natural forces. To me, personally, it really doesn't matter. Regardless of which side it is, they are still essentially representative deities. They exist, at least, in what they represent (if that makes sense; sort of like how a person who has passed still exists in memory).

EDIT 2: Also try to remember, they don't represent simply natural forces, but also human aspects as well. In fact, most deities are both in that way.

kiwi_tea

27th Sep 2010, 11:30 PM

whiterider, you're conflating two separate meanings of the word "religion". A-theism essentially means the same thing as non-religious. "Bald is not a hair colour", as they say.

The story of the elephant and the blind men! Ah yes! I wrote about this recently:

Theologians aside, it is very difficult to establish how the average Xtian interpreted the Bible. Were people literalists, or did they accept agile-minded special pleading? We cannot say. We're confined to accepting that the literalist perspective, while dominant throughout Xtian theological history, has not gone unchallenged. The weakest theological argument about Genesis has to be that of Thomas Aquinas, with his idea that scientific truths cannot (read: 'must not') contradict the truths of faith as allegedly authored by Yahweh. Aquinas therefore sought to draw a distinction between change, the changing universe, and the source of existence as allegedly demonstrated in the Bible: God. The end result is, basically, the claim that physical theories do not bear any important relationship to faith. It does not matter, concludes Aquinas, how the world was made. What matters is that God did make it. It's naturalistic dualism, cleaving philosophy off from its origins: Human minds in a material world. Aquinas encouraged believers' to use an ancient, unsatisfying rhetorical hammer: 'It does not matter how you tinker with this world, you won't find anything, you just HAVE to believe there's a world beyond this.' Here is the tragedy of faith, of prejudice, of blindness.

Remember the anecdote about the blind men who find an elephant? That is humanity in the world. We know the tail is like string, the trunk is like a hose, and the legs are like a tree. We can cooperate to get a better understanding the elephant. But if the elephant has a colour, we who are blind from birth to our deaths will not see it. We need to suspend judgement. We need not respect those who claim the elephant is green. Nor translucent. Nor grey. Not so long as nobody sees. Not without publically verifiable evidence. Not without sight.

We do rule things out without evidence. Why else do you think invisible purple table gorillas are ridiculous? No evidence.

Now, if you'd emotionally invested yourself in these gorillas to the point where you pretended your subjective experiences alone were proof (or even good evidence) that they did exist, you might have a different tale to tell. But the claim itself wouldn't cease to be ridiculous for your believing in it.

Oaktree

28th Sep 2010, 12:01 AM

I disagree with you here - atheism is, by those terms, a kind of religion. You point out that religious people often rely on god(s) to give their arguments authority, and that's true; atheists rely on logic to provide that same authority.

I think you may be misunderstanding my terms. An argument from authority is a proclamation of something or other whose proof relies on the idea that the proclaimer has some special knowledge that is true, but only he possesses. This prevents an authority from being fact-checked by others, which takes away much of the credibility of it. In religion, those authority figures are the priests. A layman has no way of communicating directly with god(s), so the word of the priest stands without any possibility for argument.

Logic, on the other hand, is accessible to all. It is part of our innate nature that we are capable of reasoning. We don't always hold strictly to logic, but we have an innate sense of what makes sense and what doesn't. We have developed that sense into scientific study and symbolic logic, but even without knowledge of those things, we are capable of pointing out logical flaws in the things that we are told. If you tell me that 1+1=3, I can come back and say that that isn't a logical deduction (on a side note, arithmetic holds a special place of being one of the few things that we have perfect objective and innate knowledge of). Even if a person isn't capable of verbally formulating it, everyone can understand that if you have one apple and you find one more apple, you have two apples. Logic is similar, although an individual person's grasp on anything beyond the most basic logic does get a little fuzzy. That fuzziness causes some dispute over logical deductions, but those are almost always a case of flawed base assumptions. Logic itself is capable of perfection.

Purity4

28th Sep 2010, 12:37 AM

I think this is an argument of semantics, though. Essentially, it doesn't alter the main point; atheism acts like religion, once you strip away the outer stuff and break it down at the most fundamental level.

The reason I was discussing semantics is because I disagree that atheism acts or is a form of religion in any way. Atheism just is lack of theism. On whiterider's point, 'the nature of the universe', atheists do not have one definition there. Being atheist does not make all atheists come to the same conclusions regarding the universe because atheism is not a religion.

Nekowolf

28th Sep 2010, 1:33 AM

Hm. Perhaps a better clarification, then? While I agree with whiterider, I'll let him argue his point. I'll take a different route.

There are atheists (individuals) who act like religious individuals. I have been in discussions with these people. I even had one, when I asked him, plainly say, yes. He was trying to convert people to atheism. How? By bludgeoning religion in itself and the very concept of faith until people questioned their religion to the point where they would turn atheist.

Sound familiar? It does to me. In some ways, I think the problem is that atheism really doesn't have groups it divides into (that I know of). The entirety of religion has that benefit. You cannot point to a Christian fanatic and say "Look! Hindu is (insert adjective) and he proves it!" That just wouldn't make any sense. Atheism, though, is more like a singular group, really. Of course, there are anti-theists, but there isn't a whole lot of definition presented between them; the line is rather blurred.

You know what I'm saying?

el_flel

28th Sep 2010, 2:20 AM

Sounds like Richard Dawkins, Nekowolf. He is so aggressive in his view that religion is bullshit that even I, as an atheist, find it a bit offensive. He comes across a little hypocritical because he hates religion yet acts like a religious fanatic - is very extreme in his opinion and seems like he's constantly trying to convert people and convince them that their belief is the wrong one.

Purity4

28th Sep 2010, 3:42 AM

Nekowolf, I'd say someone like that is a fanatic, and I wouldn't consider that the norm. Not that I know very many atheists, but the ones I do are more of the attitude of live and let live and are not worried about what anyone else believes or doesn't believe religious-wise and only is concerned with the person themself, as in how they treat others and the world around them.

Rectos Dominos

28th Sep 2010, 7:12 AM

modfanatic

28th Sep 2010, 8:51 AM

You can have a religion without believing in a god and you can believe in a god without having a religion.

kiwi_tea

28th Sep 2010, 8:51 AM

There are atheists (individuals) who act like religious individuals. I have been in discussions with these people. I even had one, when I asked him, plainly say, yes. He was trying to convert people to atheism. How? By bludgeoning religion in itself and the very concept of faith until people questioned their religion to the point where they would turn atheist.

This raises quite a few questions, though, doesn't it? For example, are religious people wrong for activism or are they wrong because their views are plain irrational and sometimes dangerous? I would say it's the latter. I would say some level of anti-religious activism is very healthy. Shouldn't people champion learning, and knowledge, rather than pretending, and ignorance?

Religion as a concept doesn't need bludgeoning. It's irrational. It's a lie to oneself, more than anything, and it justifies to some degree lying about other things. If you're going to pretend you know there's a god, why not also pretend you can communicate with the dead. There's a great way to unintentionally exploit and hurt grieving people.

Ultimately, shouldn't there be some level of pro-reason activism, indeed, to counter the activism of the pro-religious? Dawkins and co are a bit obsessed, it's true. But they're obsessed with the fact that what in any other circumstances would be freely identified as total batshit-insanity is socially lauded.

Sounds like Richard Dawkins, Nekowolf. He is so aggressive in his view that religion is bullshit that even I, as an atheist, find it a bit offensive. He comes across a little hypocritical because he hates religion yet acts like a religious fanatic - is very extreme in his opinion and seems like he's constantly trying to convert people and convince them that their belief is the wrong one.

You can understand why he's fanatical, though, can't you? Wouldn't you be, if you spent your life doing amazingly complicated scientific work - discovering and researching wonderful things - and a bunch of spooks started chanting "We have a deep inner experience that proves you wrong" over and over for decades? This is the problem. Religion is just fake science. It's science for the lazy and arrogant. It's pretending to know something without doing any work towards knowing it, and often it involves pretending to know things that, eventually, science comes to understand totally differently.

Religion tends to be wrong. Because it's made up. And if you care about people and learning, you're sort of duty-bound to be critical of that religious attitude.

Nekowolf

28th Sep 2010, 9:36 AM

@Purity - "Nekowolf, I'd say someone like that is a fanatic, and I wouldn't consider that the norm." - wasn't my intention to make claim it was the norm. Rather, it's easier to perceive as the norm when the group is, for the most part, singular rather than divided into smaller subgroups.

@kiwi - "plain irrational and sometimes dangerous" - well that's hardly something exclusive to religion.

kiwi_tea

28th Sep 2010, 10:23 AM

"plain irrational and sometimes dangerous" - well that's hardly something exclusive to religion.

No, it's not, you're right and I agree. But should we encourage a socially-accepted irrationality? Should we encourage people to claim that the earth was seeded by alien souls, or a dead man rose back to life, or lovers are bound together at the beginnings of their lives by invisible red string, or white people are preferred by God due to the story of Ham? We should certainly tolerate it, but criticise it too, shouldn't we? Should we allow people to enjoy their prejudice - their prejudging of the universe's current unknowns - totally unchallenged?

What does religion provide that people can't get elsewhere? Not only is religion fake science... ...it's fake ethics... ...fake morality... ...fake knowledge... ...faked belief.

What part of it isn't fake-something-useful?

el_flel

28th Sep 2010, 10:45 AM

You can understand why he's fanatical, though, can't you? Wouldn't you be, if you spent your life doing amazingly complicated scientific work - discovering and researching wonderful things - and a bunch of spooks started chanting "We have a deep inner experience that proves you wrong" over and over for decades? This is the problem. Religion is just fake science. It's science for the lazy and arrogant. It's pretending to know something without doing any work towards knowing it, and often it involves pretending to know things that, eventually, science comes to understand totally differently.

Religion tends to be wrong. Because it's made up. And if you care about people and learning, you're sort of duty-bound to be critical of that religious attitude.There are millions of other scientists out there who feel the same way but they don't have his attitude. It's not what he stands for that I dislike, it's the way he goes about it. IMO attacking people's beliefs and belitting them for it isn't a good way to try and get people to understand your point of view. It's just going to piss them off and make them even more opposed to whatever you're preaching (general 'you', not aimed at anyone specifically).

kiwi_tea

28th Sep 2010, 10:49 AM

I understand your point el_flel and to a degree I agree with you. But it does take all folks. Certainly, I've heard from so many people who have been convinced by Dawkins I'm sometimes quite surprised. He is a very good science populariser and communicator, and in terms of offering solid scientific arguments he's quite capable. A lot of Dawkin's "attitude" is constructed by the media misreporting him and selectively quoting him, too. For example, he never even said "I will arrest the Pope", but newspapers all over the world ran that fake quote.

I don't think he mocks as often as many people think. Usually he makes very good points in quite a dry, matter-of-fact manner. Such as:

'Consider this. If a paranormalist could really give an unequivocal demonstration of telepathy (precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, whatever it is), he would be the discoverer of a totally new principle unknown to physical science. The discoverer of the new energy field that links mind to mind in telepathy, or of the new fundamental force that moves objects around a table top, deserves a Nobel prize and would probably get one. If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake.'

el_flel

28th Sep 2010, 11:14 AM

I think many of the people he's likely to convert are those who are on the fence anyway or people who have never really given the topic much thought. I also think that you're going to get people who accept his argument without really considering the other side because, in a way, there's a lack of opposing argument. I don't mean that the religious don't have a leg to stand on, what I mean is there doesn't seem to be a figure similar to him who is arguing the other side. He gets his point out there. He's on TV and radio talking about it. There doesn't seem to be anyone doing that for religion. What I wonder is, how much of his success (by success I mean managing to convert people to his 'side') is a product of the way he argues his point? People are, for lack of a better phrase, easily led or persuaded by confident, strong people. I just wonder how much the psychology of leadership comes into play here. Do you know what I mean?

As for his attitude I got my opinion of that from his documentary, The God Delusion. He's a very clever man, no doubt about it, but I think he doesn't have to be quite so militant about his dislike of religion.

There actually are real scientists doing work on some aspects of parapsychology, telepathy in particular. I suscribe to New Scientist and they did a feature on unusual aspects of science and this was one of the things they covered, albeit briefly. So don't entirely rule it out!

kiwi_tea

28th Sep 2010, 11:26 AM

I do know what you mean about leadership and psychology. But still, I'm not sure. Dawkins, as a scientist, is very good. Like Patricia Churchland. Both put their cases forward really strongly in evidence, and with logic.

I don't mean that the religious don't have a leg to stand on, what I mean is there doesn't seem to be a figure similar to him who is arguing the other side.

Deepak Chopra. Joseph Farrah. Rush Limbaugh. Every Muslim cleric in existence. Every priest of every church in existence. Everyone who ever preaches a gospel is engaging in religious activism. Everyone who ever claims to know something about the universe that they don't know.

I think he doesn't have to be quite so militant

To me 'militant' means bombing people, not criticising their ideas. And don't get me wrong, I hated The God Delusion myself. Couldn't finish it. But that book was a primal scream against decades of religious opposition to his much more scientific titles. In light of that fact, he comes across as pretty composed in it.

There actually are real scientists doing work on some aspects of parapsychology, telepathy in particular. I suscribe to New Scientist and they did a feature on unusual aspects of science and this was one of the things they covered, albeit briefly. So don't entirely rule it out!

Yes. But it's also VERY important that we don't rule it in, either. Especially when the data supporting parapsychology is, thus far, incredibly poor. There's better data for most cryptids than there is for telepathy.

el_flel

28th Sep 2010, 11:35 AM

I meant more in popular media. In the UK, at least, religious proponents aren't vocal in the same way he is. If you look at it scientifically, you can only accept his success rates as accurate if you've got a religious spokesman who preaches in a similar way to him to compare the data to. People often hear one side of an argument and accept it without considering the other side.

Yeah, militant was probably a bad word (it's 11:30am and I've not eaten yet lol), but you get my drift.

kiwi_tea

28th Sep 2010, 11:48 AM

I meant more in popular media. In the UK, at least, religious proponents aren't vocal in the same way he is. If you look at it scientifically, you can only accept his success rates as accurate if you've got a religious spokesman who preaches in a similar way to him to compare the data to. People often hear one side of an argument and accept it without considering the other side.

Hmmmmm. But one of the reasons religious proponents don't criticise so vigorously as Dawkins is because they don't really have any platform to criticise from except vague social complaints. They can't attack science and learning, because they have to pretend to be compatible with science and learning.

el_flel

28th Sep 2010, 12:05 PM

That is true.

I shall come back to this later because it's very interesting, but right now I have to go off and be educated on cultural criminology :)

Nekowolf

28th Sep 2010, 1:11 PM

I have to agree with el_flel on those convinced into atheism. Someone who truly believes in something, regardless if it's a metaphysical deity of monotheism, or the representations of nature and man that is in polytheism, or the transcendence beyond humanity, into a higher state of existence, like in Buddhism or Taoism, they cannot simply be convinced to let go of that. They likely were, as she said, already on the fence about it, or weren't really practitioners anyway.

Not saying it doesn't happen, but in those cases, it's usually something really huge and life-altering.

And kiwi, you just had to mention Rush Limbaugh. My brain suffers a hemorrhaging every time at the mere mention of his name.

kiwi_tea

28th Sep 2010, 1:28 PM

But then, what are they letting go of, except a story? Sure, they imagine the story is real. It's "real" to them, in a terrifying sense. They believe they know something that they don't. They believe nature and gods are prescribing them ethics. It's horrific. And it's still just a story, isn't it?

I was a dedicated believer, myself, up until about 15. Christian, specifically. It didn't take something huge and life-altering. It took the sudden realisation that... ...well... ...I didn't know. Not really. Nor did anyone else. They were lying to themselves really, really hard, just like I was. So hard you don't realise you're even doing it. Until you realise. It really only takes honesty. Nothing life-changing, just honesty.

RoseCity

28th Sep 2010, 2:43 PM

No, it's not, you're right and I agree. But should we encourage a socially-accepted irrationality? Should we encourage people to claim that the earth was seeded by alien souls, or a dead man rose back to life, or lovers are bound together at the beginnings of their lives by invisible red string, or white people are preferred by God due to the story of Ham? We should certainly tolerate it, but criticise it too, shouldn't we?

What do you mean when you say 'we' - i.e. are you the spokesperson of some larger group?

Should we allow people to enjoy their prejudice - their prejudging of the universe's current unknowns - totally unchallenged?

Now I'm wondering - is that larger group People United Against Enjoyment of Unverified Things?

What does religion provide that people can't get elsewhere? Not only is religion fake science... ...it's fake ethics... ...fake morality... ...fake knowledge... ...faked belief. What part of it isn't fake-something-useful?

It's faulty logic to say that because something can't be scientifically verified, it's 'fake'. I had a paranormal experience - you may think I'm lying about it, but there is no way I can prove it happened. There is also no way you can prove that it didn't.

kiwi_tea

28th Sep 2010, 3:20 PM

Nekowolf

28th Sep 2010, 3:57 PM

RoseCity, your quotes are broken. Anyway, if I may provide my own example of what you are trying to say.

The Coelacanth. They were thought to be extinct; you would have to be a crazy person to believe they were still alive. But lo-and-behold, here they were, all this time.

And really, paranormal isn't the best way to go in reference. No, religion really doesn't have a reference. It is something unobservable and unknowable and to expect observable, let alone physical, evidence of something that is both, like I said, A. unobservable, and B. unknowable, it is asking the impossible.

Perhaps they are mere stories, yes. But it doesn't matter. The Odyssey and the Iliad, they merely a stories, but look how much influence they have even when they are known to be stories. EDIT: Of course people don't believe in them. But what about Atlantis? People certainly believe in that, even when it was just made up by Plato (I think as a hypothetical scenario).

However, I do strongly disagree with literalists. And those who claim to know what cannot be known, who say their ideas are "real," to put it in, unfortunately, what I think is improper context (but I cannot think of how else to express it).

And I would like to make a clarification. Lying to yourself to believe in something, I do not see that as being a true believer in something. But also, I never was raised Heathen. Many neopagans were not raised in the faith they are now. They learn about it for themselves, and while it may take a few tries to find your belief, yes, once you settle into something, it's not something you really remove yourself from. Again, this is from a perspective of neopaganism. Probably because we generally give ourselves much more freedom than the Abrahamic faiths when it comes to such matters.

fakepeeps7

28th Sep 2010, 6:33 PM

In that case, if each person claims that light is one but not the other, both are wrong. Light has objective characteristics. A subjective view that is based on evidence, but not enough evidence, is still wrong.

Exactly.

But when you're arguing for a materialistic world view, you seem to be claiming that you do have enough evidence. There's no way to know for sure whether you do or not. Your views are still subjective, whether you like it or not.

modfanatic

28th Sep 2010, 6:40 PM

What's the point of having a religion if you don't believe in God (unless you believe in a kind of a force/spirit). Again, one believes in God but has no religion? It doesn't make sense.

Religion itself is a belief in God. The fact that you believe in God/force/spirit means religion. Religion and belief in God are inseparable.

I see your point, because from what I heard buddhists generally believe in spirits, which none are most supreme.

Mistermook

28th Sep 2010, 6:45 PM

I'll just leave this here...

Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928,0,3225238.story)

Undercovers_Agent

28th Sep 2010, 8:02 PM

To be quite honest I've really been agnostic. "Why?" you may ask, well the matter at hand is very simple. When you look at every religion it walways has a core value or moral, (Like a story) that is supposed to make you into a better person. I am most intimate with Christianity so I'll use it to demonstrate my point.

Christianity is a lot like Santa Claus. You do good things, and you get rewarded, not immediatly, but at a certain time and place, and your reward is determined by someone with greater power in you. That in a nutshell is Christianity. And you know what? It's done some damn good things, but it's also done some bad things. It's lead to some people to "See the light" and stop something potentialy harmful or hurtful, but then there are the "Bible thumpers" that litteraly correct everyone who doesn't see religion the same way. But I believe that religion is supposed to just make you feel good, and it sure as hell doesn't work for me. kthanxbai.

Mistermook

28th Sep 2010, 8:40 PM

I believe that religion is supposed to just make you feel good, and it sure as hell doesn't work for me. kthanxbai.
If that were the only thing that were going on with religion I don't think I would have a problem with it either. I mean, I can be horribly fanboy about my works of fiction too, and as a work of literature the Bible kind of needs some heavy editing but there's enough gems of poetry and interesting stories that even I can enjoy it for all of that. And as insight into Bronze age mysticism and perceptions of the world around them? Spot on!

But that's not how people use religion. It's not enough that they get something meaningful out of religion, it's got to be some sort of "truth" that they use to bludgeon the science or a weapon to wield in their political gains. What should be an afterthought, like the someone who occasionally dresses up in a Star Trek uniform or fixes up vintage cars, becomes some sort of dominant and oppressive force not just in their own lives but in the way they want other people to live theirs.

Nekowolf

28th Sep 2010, 8:41 PM

"But that's not how people use religion."

Some people. Or whatever; point being, not everyone.

RoseCity

28th Sep 2010, 9:00 PM

(a) These are questions for "us" as human beings. Note that they are questions, not statements.

(b) You, yourself, also have no way of verifying you didn't dream or hallucinate your paranormal experience, or that it's even paranormal at all. But there is a very large body of repeatable data discounting the reliability of (1) eyewitness testimony (2) paranormal claims. The chips are stacked pretty damn heavily against your perceived paranormal experience being real.

If you remember, I already said I had no way to prove it, so wow, score a point for you. And nor would I ever argue that it happened for that very reason. But I also would not logically be able to say to someone that their experience didn't happen or that their religion was fake - because I can't pretend to know what is in another person's head and heart.

Oaktree

28th Sep 2010, 11:27 PM

The Coelacanth. They were thought to be extinct; you would have to be a crazy person to believe they were still alive. But lo-and-behold, here they were, all this time.

Even if something is true, it is useless to the rest of humanity without justification. Without evidence and/or reasoning, there is nothing to distinguish you from a crazy person. If I came up to you and told you that Cthulhu sleeps at the bottom of the ocean, you would have no reason to believe me unless I showed you evidence, whether it was true or not. Copernicus's ideas (which aren't completely correct, but close enough that I'll use the example) weren't initially accepted because we didn't have the physical proof that the Earth revolves around the sun. He had mathematical calculations, but so did the popular Ptolemaic astronomy. People needed something beyond just that it was a possible reality. They needed real evidence/reasoning that it was more likely that the earth orbits around the sun as opposed to the sun rotating around the earth.

Would you prefer to live in a world where people accept what they are told without question? I will once again quote Aristotle: "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." If you don't ask for rigid evidence before accepting an idea, you will be unable to avoid believing in falsehoods.

Exactly.

But when you're arguing for a materialistic world view, you seem to be claiming that you do have enough evidence. There's no way to know for sure whether you do or not. Your views are still subjective, whether you like it or not.

What I just said about the nature of light and evidence is based in a materialistic view. You can't have evidence of a non-materialistic type, so a materialist view is the only thing that we can find logical evidence for. Materialism is essentially a base assumption, but one that we can't really dismiss because we can't logically believe anything if we throw out our only frame of reference.

Nekowolf

29th Sep 2010, 12:32 AM

kiwi_tea

29th Sep 2010, 12:49 AM

The Coelacanth. They were thought to be extinct; you would have to be a crazy person to believe they were still alive. But lo-and-behold, here they were, all this time.

Are you saying people who don't suspect T-Rexes are still roaming the earth are silly? There was no evidence that the Coelacanth was still alive. Then evidence was found. We revise our views according to evidence, not according to our own personal arrogance.

Nekowolf

29th Sep 2010, 1:35 AM

Not at all. My intention was to say: just because you cannot physically observe something does not necessarily equate it not existing. Although, the biggest problem from my perspective with that analogy is the idea of physical existence. As that is something I hold no argument for or against.

However, deities, religion, these are things not observable. Nor knowable. So the idea that there needs to be evidence is, as I said, asking for the impossible. Although I do agree on holding such to those who claim physical manifestation of religious beliefs. Such as "miracles." If you want to make claims of a physical, material nature, then yes, there should be some evidence of it.

And "personal arrogance?" That seems like an odd choice of wording. Hm. Maybe not, thinking about it. Just a bit awkward at first reading.

kiwi_tea

29th Sep 2010, 1:56 AM

Name something, anything, that doesn't have physical existence. Even ideas are manifested physically in the mind and on paper. We don't really have any way of assessing whether non-physical things exist. We just have to totally suspend our judgement.

Nekowolf

29th Sep 2010, 2:12 AM

Um. Yes. That's what I m saying, have said; we cannot know the nature of deities one way or the other. They are unobservable and unknowable. They may be real, they may not be. They could have some form of manifestation, or they could be merely representative.

The truth is unknowable to us. That has always been my position.

kiwi_tea

29th Sep 2010, 5:44 AM

Well, the "truth" isn't unknowable to us. We have a lot of evidence that is very consistent. We can probably go out of a limb and say tables aren't invisible, purple gorillas in disguise... ...we could take that one step further and say, "It certainly doesn't appear that there are gods or a god." Which is not to say there are not. Just that we're best assuming there are not given the total lack of evidence. Purple gorillas? Nah. Gods? Nah.

Well... ...maybe. We'd need some evidence first.

And yet, you are a theist. Seems an impossible position to hold without at least saying also: "My beliefs are a pretty fiction."

Oaktree

29th Sep 2010, 7:17 AM

"Even if something is true, it is useless to the rest of humanity without justification." - that is not true though. Though I guess that depends at how you look at "justification." Many stories are not real, are known to not be real, but nonetheless are far from useless.

You'll have to be more specific.

"there is nothing to distinguish you from a crazy person." Then let me be insane and throw me into the stockades! I'd rather be crazy than be anything but myself!

It's your choice whether you want to try to fit social expectations or not. Some social expectations are very purposeful and beneficial, others not so much. The expectation of evidence when making a claim is something that I see as a beneficial social expectation. There is a fine line to walk between fitting in and doing/believing what you think is right. Other people can often be a good compass to judge the sanity of your ideas, though it's best to not rely completely on everyone else, as people are fallible and it is possible for a large number of people to have a wrong belief. This is something of a separate discussion, though.

"Would you prefer to live in a world where people accept what they are told without question?" No. But we do not live in such a world. Only partially is the world, and every person out there, like this. No one ever completely like this lest they have mental problems. And in that case, they're not really good as a standard.

We live in a world where people use reason in some of their thought processes and follow blind faith in others. If you use reason when determining the qualities of the world around you, why would you selectively ignore reason when it comes to whether or not you believe in divine beings? What is so different about them that they have two entirely separate rule sets in so many people's minds?

"I will once again quote Aristotle: "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." If you don't ask for rigid evidence before accepting an idea, you will be unable to avoid believing in falsehoods." - that is not what that quote means. It does not mean "do not accept an idea without evidence for it."

What it means is to tolerate another point of view, with respect, even if you do not accepting the opposing idea.

I wasn't reiterating the meaning of the quote in that sentence, I was building upon it. The quote isn't exactly about tolerance, so much as it is about keeping an open mind until you have examined the reasoning/evidence. It means not to shut down an idea instantly, but to consider whether it might be true. It doesn't mean that you must tolerate all other views. There are some views that it is best not to tolerate. If someone tells you that it is okay to steal from people, that is a view it is best not to tolerate. Even tolerating unevidenced beliefs can be a problem, as those views can lead to wrong just as easily (if not moreso) than the aforementioned case of theft. In practice, I am tolerant of the religious beliefs of my friends, but ideally it is best to convince people to use logic.

Nekowolf

29th Sep 2010, 11:30 AM

@kiwi

You can only assume the "truth," never know it. There is no evidence for gods. There is no evidence against gods. Or, rather, more like the monotheistic God as paganism works differently and many deities are, well, what I'm just about to say down below.

"And yet, you are a theist. Seems an impossible position to hold without at least saying also: "My beliefs are a pretty fiction." - well like I said to Oaktree, my deities may well be nothing more but representations of natural forces and human concepts. Real or not, they certainly are regardless. So either way, natural forces exist and human concepts exist and the gods, if they do not have some form of manifestation, exist as personification of those elements.

@Oaktree

1. In what way? Nothing is ever truly useless, regardless if its fact or fiction. It always has an influence on something, somewhere.

2. If I was making claim of something material, then yes, evidence would be beneficial. If I had said, "I discovered a new drug that could help treat cancer," I had better live up to it, otherwise, I would be lying. But I'm not making a material claim, or a scientific one.

3. Because that is not the fault of religion itself. If anything, I'd say that is more the fault of organized religion; specifically, Catholicism. Hundreds of years ago, the Islamic nations were a cultural wellspring of knowledge and science. It did not end because of their religion, it ended through invasion of another, who destabilized the region. Then as Catholicism spread, so did, of course, their views on such practices as being heretical. Of course blind faith probably has always existed, sure. But I think it was the Catholics and the Vatican that really pushed the blind faith thing into a point where to be religious meant to disregard everything but religion. It was partially a power-move. If you kept people from learning about the world and the universe, then their only reliance would be on God, and who held the word of God? The Vatican. They were essentially seen as the hand of God and had incredible power. It was to their benefit to keep people in the dark.

The thing is though, is there is no "reasoning" when it comes to deities. There is simply no evidence or anything in favor or against. Yes yes, I've heard the counter before of fantastical creatures being real, etc. But that's missing the point. Those creatures, they are physical beings; of course you need evidence for their existence. Deities are not necessarily physical, as I have said before. Claims of material existence need evidence. Claims of the abstract, well, that's a bit tougher as there is and never will be evidence. Because it's something not existing in a material way. An idea, a thought, doesn't become a real thing just upon its creation. If I imagine a pie, and say there is a pie in front of me, it doesn't simply pop out of thin air. In that case, yes, evidence is necessary. But rather, you're asking, well, instead, I'll reverse rolls. It's liking me asking you, "prove I am thinking of pie right now."

4. I have to disagree. I do not see how it is about "until you have examined the reasoning/evidence." There is no reference to such within it. Simply "keep an open mind even if you disagree." But I don't see how that directly translates to "if there is evidence." It means, well, even if you disagree, at least be thoughtful on what they are saying.

simbalena

29th Sep 2010, 11:52 AM

The thing is though, is there is no "reasoning" when it comes to deities. There is simply no evidence or anything in favor or against.

I think individuals do come to their own conclusions based on "evidence", however theists and non-theists have a differing opinion on what should be considered as valid evidence. Theists may consider a feeling or personal experience as valid evidence whereas a non-theist requires measurable evidence.

kiwi_tea

29th Sep 2010, 12:12 PM

There is no evidence for gods. There is no evidence against gods.

Nekowolf, what you're saying is equal to: "There is no evidence for invisible purple gorillas hiding disguised as tables. There is no evidence against invisible purple gorillas hiding disguised as tables."

On one fundamental level these statements are both absolutely true. There is no way to prove there are not invisible purple gorillas hiding in our tables. No way at all.

But we assume, due to the complete lack of evidence, that these gorillas don't exist. It's the only sensible stance. Bear in mind these aren't physical gorillas.

If your religion is just a representation - a Just So Story - what on Earth do you gain from it? What does it add to descriptions of the world? Unsubstantiated consciousnesses? Unsubstantiated prescriptive forces?

Isn't the only thing you gain prejudice? Aren't you, yourself, the loser in this illogical transaction?

@simbalena "evidence" is defined by the OED as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". Facts are "a thing that is known or proved to be true". Feelings are so incredibly fallible, it is almost impossible to call a "feeling" or a single subjective sense a "fact" or "information". Feelings are "hunches". They're a good starting point to look for evidence, so long as they're not taken too seriously.

Nekowolf

29th Sep 2010, 2:15 PM

@simbalena - I certainly do not disagree with that. People definitely do that, yes. But I was pointing out the simple fact that, in the end, it's all moot. Because, the answer is inconclusive.

@kiwi

That again? Look, you can feel a table. You can see it, you can move it, you can dissect it, take it apart, cut it in half. That is the biggest flaw of your analogy, always has been.

You are placing a physical reality onto something that is not. Or at the very least, something that we have no idea if it is. There is evidence against that analogy; because we have tables, and they are physical things. We can easily study a table down to its atomic anatomy.

We cannot do the same to deities. Even if it's a gorilla-like deity. In which case, would likely be a cultural thing; though essentially all religion is, at least at birth.

EDIT: If it was an invisible gorilla-god, and it was disguised as a table, and we can physically inspect a table down to its molecular structure, then that means the deity has form and is, therefore, real. But regardless of what you say, the question is - how would we know? We can't. The thing is though is you are using something so absurd, and while I see your point, it does not necessarily apply within the context of the idea of deities not being physical entities.

And what I gain from it? Well to break it down, Nature could be seen as, hm, what's a good word? Magical. I don't mean that literally, though. But more like if you saw a gorgeous sight, such as mountains and forests and such. I mean, yes, you can understand all the intricacies of the science behind it, but that doesn't make it any less incredible.

Or take the Judeo-Christian God. Why delegitimize science for the sake of their long-standing views of God's creation? If anything, if I was in that position, the fact that God could create a system so absolutely, incredibly, complex and advanced would be even more awe-inspiring of God's ability.

I'll be blunt. From my personal experience arguing with atheists, what I have seen in most of them, they only look through the lens of a singular perspective. Generally the idea that science and religion are exclusive to each other, and that God made everything in accordance to popular belief within the monotheistic religious community. Granted, I did say it is the popular belief, yes. But not the only belief. And religion itself isn't necessarily at fault, but rather its practitioners who taint it with their will and morals and etc.

I firmly believe in science. A few billion years ago, dust, rock, and other materials circled our young Sun and collected together through its gravity, eventually forming into a growing clump, which eventually grew into the young Earth. As it ever-so-slowly cooled, eventually, either something came riding down on a meteorite, or amino acids were created on the Earth (as we have been able to create them before), or whatever. Point being, eventually, bacteria was created on the Earth. It eventually grew into small single-celled organisms. Those grew into multi-celled organisms. Those grew into more complex organisms. And it pretty much went from there through the next billion or so years until we finally end up here through evolution, which is incredibly tiny changes with new generations that take a few million years to actually morph into a somewhat new creature, although there really isn't any clear point of time where this actually happens, unless you look at the fossils from a few million years before the present time.

I know how it all works, and I believe in it. My religion does not interfere with it. Religion and science are not exclusive to each other. Science and certain philosophies are what are exclusive. The condemning of scientific thought isn't coming from, say, God himself. It's coming from people. People who don't want to know anything else, or people who want the power they have held firm so they shut out the rest as it could potentially disturb that hierarchy through revolution. You must not forget the history of religious culture. Monotheism is a powerful tool for monarch to use, and manipulation into a religious culture that benefits them, especially the Vatican, was very much prevalent during those elder times.

As for what I get out of it? Hm. Now that is a good question. Comfort, for some reason. Not the kind you have where, "oh this is just God's plan," no. But more like acceptance of a part of me. Perhaps, in a way, it's something to look to. Not necessarily for morals, no, though I do agree with the Nine Noble Virtues (though they're rather generic, I mean, who would be opposed to honesty or hospitality or courage?). Sort of like how even people who are not very religious, when fall on hard times, may look to God.

If you feel you do not have to strength, look to Thor. If you need creativity, you can look to Odin or Bragi. To Freyja for love. That is not to say that you should expect some kind of divine intervention, no, but you can still turn to them for motivation or inspiration.

So no. I do not see my self as a loser at all. I embrace science, I embrace my faith as well. You may see me as being the loser in the scheme of things, but I certainly do not see myself in such a way, and definitely do not feel like it. I would be a loser, however, if I was to be someone I am not.

EDIT2: I do an edit, and already I have a Disagree? Hm, I'm beginning to think I'm being disagreed against simply by name. But whatever.

Oaktree

29th Sep 2010, 3:08 PM

@Oaktree

1. In what way? Nothing is ever truly useless, regardless if its fact or fiction. It always has an influence on something, somewhere.

If you can make use of a scientific principle that you discover but can't justify, then it may have some use. If you can't justify it, though, you aren't really adding to the body of human knowledge and you're not likely to have too many people believe you and use your scientific discovery.

2. If I was making claim of something material, then yes, evidence would be beneficial. If I had said, "I discovered a new drug that could help treat cancer," I had better live up to it, otherwise, I would be lying. But I'm not making a material claim, or a scientific one.

So you're saying that, as long as the claim you make has nothing to do with physical reality, it is okay to make a baseless claim? What about the concept of truth? Most people want to believe truth, whether it is directly observable to them or not. People can't know that something is true without some form of justification.

3. Because that is not the fault of religion itself. If anything, I'd say that is more the fault of organized religion; specifically, Catholicism. Hundreds of years ago, the Islamic nations were a cultural wellspring of knowledge and science. It did not end because of their religion, it ended through invasion of another, who destabilized the region. Then as Catholicism spread, so did, of course, their views on such practices as being heretical. Of course blind faith probably has always existed, sure. But I think it was the Catholics and the Vatican that really pushed the blind faith thing into a point where to be religious meant to disregard everything but religion. It was partially a power-move. If you kept people from learning about the world and the universe, then their only reliance would be on God, and who held the word of God? The Vatican. They were essentially seen as the hand of God and had incredible power. It was to their benefit to keep people in the dark.

The thing is though, is there is no "reasoning" when it comes to deities. There is simply no evidence or anything in favor or against. Yes yes, I've heard the counter before of fantastical creatures being real, etc. But that's missing the point. Those creatures, they are physical beings; of course you need evidence for their existence. Deities are not necessarily physical, as I have said before. Claims of material existence need evidence. Claims of the abstract, well, that's a bit tougher as there is and never will be evidence. Because it's something not existing in a material way. An idea, a thought, doesn't become a real thing just upon its creation. If I imagine a pie, and say there is a pie in front of me, it doesn't simply pop out of thin air. In that case, yes, evidence is necessary. But rather, you're asking, well, instead, I'll reverse rolls. It's liking me asking you, "prove I am thinking of pie right now."

Actually, the Catholic church was relatively accepting of scientific ideas until the Protestant Reformation. They were certainly corrupt at points, and they became harsher on the sciences when their authority was threatened by the Protestant Reformation, but overall, the Catholic church has historically been relatively reasonable about scientific truth.

The Protestant sects, on the other hand, believe specifically that faith is the answer. They focus on the idea that faith in Jesus alone will get you into Heaven. Christian fundamentalism developed out of Protestantism.

I'm not trying to defend the Catholic church, as there was a lot wrong with it, but I was correcting your history for the sake of correctness.

4. I have to disagree. I do not see how it is about "until you have examined the reasoning/evidence." There is no reference to such within it. Simply "keep an open mind even if you disagree." But I don't see how that directly translates to "if there is evidence." It means, well, even if you disagree, at least be thoughtful on what they are saying.

Aristotle believed there is objective morality. If you believe that there is objective morality, you cannot tolerate philosophical claims that are opposed to your own. He was a proponent of virtue ethics, which said that it was best to have traits that are moderate points between two vices (for example, cowardice and foolhardiness). If someone told him that it is best to be foolhardy, he would have disagreed in the end, though he would have considered the reasoning of the person making the claim.

Nekowolf

29th Sep 2010, 3:48 PM

1. I see what you are saying, at least. I really don't have any more discussion for it, as the "truth" of religion, I find, to be rather irrelevant to the practice, and that by trying to define what is "true" is folly.

Which, coincidentally, plays into #2. People can try to find the "truth," but will never find it. My point was, is I am not claiming what I am saying is the "truth" or the "one path" or any of that. I would say that by you saying there are no deities is just as baseless as me saying there is the possibility. Which has always been my position, never a direct yes or no. Because, a "yes" or a "no" is to claim knowledge unattainable to us right now.

3. Thank you.

4. I'll have to get back to that later. I would bust out my philosophy book to read up more on Aristotle and virtue ethics, but I'm a bit busy right now with other things. Sort of going back and forth between stuff.

Oaktree

29th Sep 2010, 8:37 PM

Nekowolf: I agree that we can't know most things for certain, but what I have been attempting to get across throughout the argument is that some things are more likely to be true than others. To quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Nekowolf

29th Sep 2010, 8:56 PM

Oh I know that. It just seems to me that, something of which is reality is unknown, and of which can be interpreted in different ways, probability tends to become... hmm. Tricky. I guess you could say.

EDIT: As a generality. Of course, when you break it down into different, say, categories, things become a bit easier.

kiwi_tea

30th Sep 2010, 1:24 AM

It's not tricky. You just have to consider that your beliefs are exactly as probable as every other possible set of proposals about metaphysics. So the probability of guessing right about a metaphysical scheme (if a metaphysical world even exists) is so infinitesimal it hurts my head to even think about it. It's like trying to imagine the likelihood that Voltaire will kill me in my sleep tonight with a vinegar bottle, but much, much, much more difficult.

And, literally, there's as much chance of your stories about metaphysics being right as there is that a metaphysical purple gorilla inhabits each and every table.

I just don't, personally, see what you get out of making such an impossibly impossible stab in the dark. Isn't the world magical enough all by itself? Do you think nature is prescriptive, by the way? Do you believe there are things that nature demands we should or should not do? Often at the vaguer level of spirituality, that's how conflicts with science arise, so I'm curious.

Mistermook

30th Sep 2010, 2:25 AM

More importantly, in my mind, is that I really don't understand why religious folks have this necessity of their moral teachings being writ large in the universe. Religion is interesting enough, even to me as an atheist, that I don't see why anyone would need for it to be "real" to get something out of it. I've never been shy about popping into all sorts of religious institutions or been that guy that said no to an invitation to observe someone's ceremonies no matter how much I disagree with them. On some level if religious people would just say "It makes me happy" I'm perfectly fine with that. There are crazier things out there that people can have as hobbies. But it rarely ends there, and when it doesn't end there it's...sad. And oppressive to others. And anti-science.

ElementMK

30th Sep 2010, 2:51 AM

Do you believe there are things that nature demands we should or should not do?I don't think the majority of mankind cares. We've tried to make nature our bitch since we thought "agriculture" was a fun idea. Nature gave us legs, but we wanted to move faster. Now we can get anywhere on Earth in a matter of hours. We are synthesizing life, we are mimicking the Sun, we've built machines that think faster than we can, etc.

Nature's a wimp. Nature gave us the platypus. Nature is about as authoritative as a babysitter telling you to not eat all of the Pop-Tarts.

Nekowolf

30th Sep 2010, 3:03 AM

@kiwi

And just as probable as everything you say, because my view of what deities could be is broad. Unless you want to argue nature and human concepts do not exist altogether. But that's me, personally. I cannot say the same for others.

It may well simply be personification, like you see in literature. And no, I do not think Nature has a consciousness.

@mistermook

"I really don't understand why religious folks have this necessity of their moral teachings being writ large in the universe" - if I'm understanding it correctly, I agree.

"I don't see why anyone would need for it to be "real" to get something out of it" - I agree with this, also.

"religious people would just say "It makes me happy" - my faith makes me happy. I'm more than willing to admit that. I have no intention to push it on others; it's mine alone, and while I'm open to teaching more about it, I have absolutely no interest to attempt to convince anyone to convert to anything. Let them figure themselves out for themselves.

@Element Leaf

Nature is more powerful than that. It can completely wipe us out with a few changes. It's very powerful, and very sensitive. Just because we have come much much closer in matching it doesn't mean it should ever be underestimated. To underestimate it is to invite disaster.

ElementMK

30th Sep 2010, 3:17 AM

@Element Leaf

Nature is more powerful than that. It can completely wipe us out with a few changes. It's very powerful, and very sensitive. Just because we have come much much closer in matching it doesn't mean it should ever be underestimated. To underestimate it is to invite disaster.If we're talking about the Earth alone, then you may be right. Oh the other hand, we have the capability to wipe out all life from the face of the Earth if we chose to. Nature could have killed us off with a disaster long ago, but we're everywhere now. To be honest, the only thing that can destroy humanity now is something out-of-this-world or ourselves. I question which is more likely, but that's a debate for another thread.

Nature isn't a thing, a person or a collective. It's a mathematical formula. Formulas can be improved and modified.

I can assure you something, though. If we continue to exist, we will progressively 1-up nature as often as possible. One of these days we'll wake up and say "Eh, nice Universe, but we could do better. We could sell it at thirteen cents a square light-year, too!".

Nekowolf

30th Sep 2010, 10:56 AM

I don't know. Perhaps. But while we understand it, we still can't quite figure it all out. There are still things we do not see that occur, unexpected events or complications, much like surgery.

But I don't mean it'll kill us all; it doesn't need to. Look at Katrina, or Haiti. Those are natural, as well. Granted, they were not defended against what occurred, but that's my point. If we take things for granted, or underestimate them, we could get complacent and lazy in protecting ourselves from the BIG cataclysms, such as Category 5 hurricanes and 7 or 8 point Richter earthquakes.

EDIT: That's not to say that that's what happened specifically in those regions, rather, they are examples of what happens when you don't have the proper, or even lacking, protection against such disasters.

Purity4

30th Sep 2010, 11:54 PM

I thought this might have a place here in this thread. This article discusses how the more you know (about religion) the less you believe.

The Meming of Life (http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=4778)

Nekowolf

1st Oct 2010, 12:12 AM

Except that it's almost entirely about Christianity in its various forms, as the rest were generally too small of a size. Plus I heard about it earlier: Mormons knew quite a bit about their own religion, and Jews were about even with atheists.

As one person pointed out on, I want to say it was Keith Olbermann but maybe I'm wrong, and interesting trend (among the Christians) seems to be the older that particular denomination, the less knowledgeable.

So really, it's not about "the more you know about religion, the less you believe." And more about "Christians don't know very much about their own faith."

kiwi_tea

1st Oct 2010, 2:06 AM

I don't know. Jewish is often a bit like "lapsed Catholic". Nearly all the Jewish people I know are atheists, but they identify as Jewish all the same. The figures are still very interesting, but we mustn't confuse correlation with causation. It's likely that atheists and agnostics know more simply because they have given much more thought to the infinite number of possible metaphysical schemes they might choose.

Nekowolf

1st Oct 2010, 2:20 AM

Actually, the possibility I heard is, to be quite frank, I think a bit more...reasonable.

That many grew up in religious surroundings, and actually paid attention to what was being said.

Purity4

1st Oct 2010, 2:53 AM

Actually, the possibility I heard is, to be quite frank, I think a bit more...reasonable.

That many grew up in religious surroundings, and actually paid attention to what was being said.
Yes, that is true, that most people are brought up in some form of religion, and paid attention, and some asked questions, and then asked more questions, then explored other options.... and some asked more questions and did more research.....

modfanatic

2nd Oct 2010, 11:07 AM

Many non-religious people say that religion has lead to the deaths of several people. If they think they're innocent then they should know what atheism has also caused. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China would be a good example.

Nekowolf

2nd Oct 2010, 11:37 AM

modfanatic

2nd Oct 2010, 12:34 PM

Now here is where I make a stand for the atheists.

You're wrong. Now, of course, my feelings is that you should generally blame individuals and institutions rather than religion itself.

Stalin wasn't as he was because of atheism. And the evils of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were for political reasons; perhaps some religious reasons, yes; they were about power; and they were about threats of the nation.

And also think about what happened in the Cultural revolution. The Chinese just barged into Tibet when it did not belong to them, destroyed the monasteries, killed dozens of Tibetans (mainly monks/nuns), and forced every survivor to live in crappy, badly decorated apartments.

Nekowolf

2nd Oct 2010, 2:05 PM

I cannot say the reasons behind it as I am not familiar with the history, but it's likely that there were either political motivations or possibly meant to be a demonstration of power.

Vikings often attacked monasteries, not because they were Christian so much as because they often had the goods they were looking for, such as coin and gold.

If you think about it, religious centers are a great place to attack. They are pivotal to people as people, and attacking such places can act as a tool of demoralization against the opposition.

kennyinbmore

2nd Oct 2010, 4:30 PM

Yes, that is true, that most people are brought up in some form of religion, and paid attention, and some asked questions, and then asked more questions, then explored other options.... and some asked more questions and did more research.....

Were you peeking in my windows? :rofl: That's exactly my story

kiwi_tea

3rd Oct 2010, 2:33 AM

Nekowolf

3rd Oct 2010, 3:02 AM

It's more like the nature of tug-of-war.

Religion adopts morals of a society. They hold onto those morals while society advances. Then you have a conflict of the issue of morality. Though I would say the codification of morality is more prevalent in the monotheisms as they actually put it down in word rather than orally, which is may be more susceptible to societal changes.

kiwi_tea

3rd Oct 2010, 4:37 AM

Except that religions also define moralities all by themselves, without adopting them from other cultures. That's half of what theology is all about. It's not just that religious morality ends up outdated, it's that it often has no rational basis at all.

The basis for religious morality is almost always falsified in metaphysical terms, such as "Don't eat meat because you upset the balance of nature", or "It is generally better to eat food that is grown without a substantial synthetic contribution, because that's more natural", or "God deems certain animals unclean to eat", etc, etc, etc.

Nekowolf

3rd Oct 2010, 11:13 AM

"Except that religions also define moralities all by themselves, without adopting them from other cultures." Can you provide for this statement?

kiwi_tea

3rd Oct 2010, 3:08 PM

RoseCity

3rd Oct 2010, 3:18 PM

The problem is religions tend prescribe a certain "moral" code. Atheists have to gain their moralities through society and reason alone. So while religious creeds of morality can be at fault (like the racism prescribed by the Bible that influenced Hitler (but that most groups carefully disregard now)), there are no "atheist creeds" of morality.

You can certainly blame a certain interpretation of the Bible for Hitler's rage against Jewish people. You can say that Hitler was a Christian denomination and he was, drawing from Christian tradition. Stalin and co? They were atheists. But their atheism didn't contribute to their blood-thirsty deeds.

Aggression and territoriality are the root causes of war - primitive human behavior. Blaming atheism makes no more sense than saying that banning all religions would end war.
It wasn't clear - are you saying that the Bible is at fault for the Holocaust? Because the last time I looked at it, I couldn't help but notice that a huge amount of the characters in the Bible are Jews.

Vampire_aninyosaloh

3rd Oct 2010, 3:24 PM

IMO, everyone tends to keep the religion tradition from their family, so that's why most people here in Spain are Catholic, and that's why Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. are mostly in some located points of Earth. That's why I believe that nobody is able to know about the existence of God, gods, or whatever.. OK, faith, you have faith that they exist because you were told to. If you are, for example, Protestant Christian, you were born in Sweden and your parents and all the people around you profess this same religion, how do you know that if you, YOU, the same you that you are now, but born for instance in Morocco, how do you know that you wouldn't be Islamist instead of Christian? It's the same you, but you have had another education, so you believe in different things.. But that's just my opinion ;)

kiwi_tea

3rd Oct 2010, 3:25 PM

I didn't say the Bible was "at fault" entirely for the Holocaust, but Hitler's highly racist interpretation of the Bible is a form of Christianity, as legitimate as any other, really, in theological terms. Most religions don't exactly require consistency in interpretation. Even if the denomination is totally horrible in secular terms. Hitler's form of Christianity is definitely a contributing factor, reliant on metaphysical support rather than reason. Which is how religion sustains irrationalities.

'My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.'

(April 12, 1922 speech, published in My New Order)

"Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth.

Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law--one may call it an iron law of Nature--which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc."

(Mein Kampf)

Nekowolf

3rd Oct 2010, 5:08 PM

Catholic belief in the Pope's status as divine appointee is a good example. Alongside transubstantiation. According to Catholicism these are reality, and it is "right" to defend them as real and as sacred, even to the point where a man was assaulted for walking out of a church with a Eucharist a few years back in the US. These "moralities" are defined by the theological structure of the religion itself - the constructed "reality" (in the most flagrant inverted commas we can find) - the imagined "structure" of an unknown metaphysical world.

I do not see how that is a "morality" necessarily created by the religion itself, but more as a monarchical entity wanting to hold power with the tool that grants said power. Much like how a dictator would prohibit public (or even attempt at private) criticism of his reign, as it could be perceived as a threat or ignition of a threat against their regime.

RoseCity

3rd Oct 2010, 5:33 PM

I didn't say the Bible was "at fault" entirely for the Holocaust, but Hitler's highly racist interpretation of the Bible is a form of Christianity, as legitimate as any other, really, in theological terms. Most religions don't exactly require consistency in interpretation. Even if the denomination is totally horrible in secular terms. Hitler's form of Christianity is definitely a contributing factor, reliant on metaphysical support rather than reason. Which is how religion sustains irrationalities.

When I wrote that I wasn't defending the Bible, per se - to me, it's a big crazy hodgepodge of contradictory rules and weird soap opera. In the two Hitler quotes you cite, he doesn't quote from the Bible. He mentions Jesus expelling the moneychangers, but it doesn't make any sense because yes, the moneychangers were Jews, but Jesus was also a Jew, so was everybody else in the temple. Hitler chooses to ignore that. He just wants to cloak himself in the authority or sanctity of the Bible. He already knows there are a lot of anti-Semites out there.
My point, such as it is, is - that humans have behaviors that they are probably going to do, regardless - war, scapegoating, pecking orders, etc. They look around for reasons and excuses to justify their actions, especially if they need to convince others to follow. So I wouldn't say that Christian morality is at fault because in the New Testament, the morality seems to be to love others. In the Old Testament, God favors the Israelites over everybody else because they alone worship him. Is that what you mean by the racism in the Bible?

kiwi_tea

3rd Oct 2010, 5:38 PM

I do not see how that is a "morality" necessarily created by the religion itself, but more as a monarchical entity wanting to hold power with the tool that grants said power. Much like how a dictator would prohibit public (or even attempt at private) criticism of his reign, as it could be perceived as a threat or ignition of a threat against their regime.

You trivialise the belief here, as if practicing Catholics don't believe in the Pope's role, or in transubstantiation. Sure, you can see the power-wielders hand in all this. But the truth is, Ratty probably believes it all too. It's likely mass delusion much more than deliberate deception, people tend to rationalise their actions, and religion allows for a whole other-worldly realm of excuse-making. I mean, look at your claims of having no choice in your faith - the frankly offensive comparison you draw with actual traits, as if your worldview was fixed. Goodness knows, it takes powerful faith to argue you're trapped like that when you're so clearly possessed of a fine mind. Trapped in "comfort", at least. Though, goodness knows, still trapped.

Isn't the point that religion is - due to it's inherently irrational and yet widely appealing nature - a perfect tool for such power-wielding and self-deception? Religion is a perfect vehicle for irrational threats/perceptions. You have to work a lot harder to sell irrationality to people who value rationality and evidence more highly than do those who are comforted by faith in things unknown. The whole point here is that irrationality, as a core value, is exceptionally dangerous... ...and irrational. It allows people to believe in things that there is no evidence for, the superiority of the Aryan race, or the primacy of "nature", or the idea that lions are supposed to eat zebras. Religion is the only efficient carriage for irrational values outside of mental illness (not that I mean to suggest religion is an illness, it is not - it's a political scheme that invokes the spectres of magic and mystery). It's nice that you have a sophisticated theology, you clearly do. But it seems that most of the sophistication has come from trying very, very hard to make something irrational seem sort of maybe rational if you squint really hard when the lighting is bad.

When I wrote that I wasn't defending the Bible, per se - to me, it's a big crazy hodgepodge of contradictory rules and weird soap opera. In the two Hitler quotes you cite, he doesn't quote from the Bible. He mentions Jesus expelling the moneychangers, but it doesn't make any sense because yes, the moneychangers were Jews, but Jesus was also a Jew, so was everybody else in the temple. Hitler chooses to ignore that. He just wants to cloak himself in the authority or sanctity of the Bible. He already knows there are a lot of anti-Semites out there. My point, such as it is, is - that humans have behaviors that they are probably going to do, regardless - war, scapegoating, pecking orders, etc. They look around for reasons and excuses to justify their actions, especially if they need to convince others to follow. So I wouldn't say that Christian morality is at fault because in the New Testament, the morality seems to be to love others. In the Old Testament, God favors the Israelites over everybody else because they alone worship him. Is that what you mean by the racism in the Bible?
Well, the character of God in the Old Testament hadn't really been worked out yet, so he was inconsistent across the texts, which are really a messy patchwork of stories from various sources. In the Book of Tobit, God is portrayed as being largely unconcerned about Tobit's (comic) tribalism, and yet in many other stories he is the source of the tribalism. The New Testament doesn't go any length at all to contradicting the culture of racism and slavery so present during the period that Jesus' may have existed.

The reality is that denominations are free to make varying interpretations of the right way to treat races other than themselves. It's quite clear that Hitler sees Christ as a divine victim of Jewish what-it-is-he's-got-in-his-sick-head. When it comes to religion... ...he can just revise it all to suit his ends. Religion, unlike reality, all boils down to perception. The fact that the moneylenders were Jewish, that Jesus was Jewish, is simple to understand if one accepts there is a God who transcends these boundaries. You just make some specious shit up and it's true for you. And your followers. Again, religion is just private prejudice about the world, either invented or received.

RoseCity

4th Oct 2010, 3:59 PM

Isn't the point that religion is - due to it's inherently irrational and yet widely appealing nature - a perfect tool for such power-wielding and self-deception? Religion is a perfect vehicle for irrational threats/perceptions. You have to work a lot harder to sell irrationality to people who value rationality and evidence more highly than do those who are comforted by faith in things unknown. The whole point here is that irrationality, as a core value, is exceptionally dangerous... ...and irrational. It allows people to believe in things that there is no evidence for, the superiority of the Aryan race, or the primacy of "nature", or the idea that lions are supposed to eat zebras. Religion is the only efficient carriage for irrational values outside of mental illness (not that I mean to suggest religion is an illness, it is not - it's a political scheme that invokes the spectres of magic and mystery). It's nice that you have a sophisticated theology, you clearly do. But it seems that most of the sophistication has come from trying very, very hard to make something irrational seem sort of maybe rational if you squint really hard when the lighting is bad.

I'm not following how you made the leap from belief in God to belief in the 'superiority of the Aryan race...' Using that as an example, did Nazism even have any significant religious component? And if that's not what you meant, Germany was in a bad way after WWI - if you've starved long enough and someone comes along and says 'I will help you', you may say 'let's follow him' - religiosity would have nothing to do with it. It would have more to do with our human brain chemistry. As does religiosity itself.

Well, the character of God in the Old Testament hadn't really been worked out yet, so he was inconsistent across the texts, which are really a messy patchwork of stories from various sources. In the Book of Tobit, God is portrayed as being largely unconcerned about Tobit's (comic) tribalism, and yet in many other stories he is the source of the tribalism. The New Testament doesn't go any length at all to contradicting the culture of racism and slavery so present during the period that Jesus' may have existed.

The reality is that denominations are free to make varying interpretations of the right way to treat races other than themselves. It's quite clear that Hitler sees Christ as a divine victim of Jewish what-it-is-he's-got-in-his-sick-head. When it comes to religion... ...he can just revise it all to suit his ends. Religion, unlike reality, all boils down to perception. The fact that the moneylenders were Jewish, that Jesus was Jewish, is simple to understand if one accepts there is a God who transcends these boundaries. You just make some specious shit up and it's true for you. And your followers. Again, religion is just private prejudice about the world, either invented or received.

Yes, denominations are free to interpret the bible, but so is anyone free to (mis)interpret any written work. If Christians actually followed the teachings of 'Jesus', we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Religion like so many things, has an ideal and on the other hand, an often ugly reality. If we said, let's get rid of all religion because it's misused and irrational and causes untold troubles, it would be replaced with something else. Because that's what people do. Some group always tries and often succeeds to control as many people as they can. 'Jesus' teaches a message of love, and says when you love, others can't control you with fear and hate. But soon , the whole thing has been twisted around into just another power trip. Do you believe that if religion was gone, people would behave rationally, wars would end, people would see the value of cooperation,etc?

kiwi_tea

4th Oct 2010, 4:02 PM

There's no such thing as "misinterpreting" a religion. If you insist that there is, what is it?

As to the religious elements of Nazism, I suggest you read the quotes above, which show an explicitly Christian and creationist framework, and then dig into the rest of the work from Germany's Nazi period.

RoseCity

4th Oct 2010, 4:36 PM

Where did I say anything about misinterpreting religion? That Christians don't follow the teachings of Christ? My point was that religion is a symptom not a cause of the world's problems.
I have read about Nazism - so far I hadn't seen any glaring links drawn between Christianity and the belief in Aryan superiority. But
I was looking up Hitler's religious beliefs on Google and saw there's some war going on between Christians and atheists, who's responsible for Hitler. You are - no, you are. So I'm not going to bother joining that debate.

Peace.and.Chaos

4th Oct 2010, 5:31 PM

I didn't have the time to read the whole thread but I'll go through it over the weekend.

My family was never a fanatical- religious one and it's a known fact that most Romanians are officially orthodox but fewer and fewer practice it nowadays.

So for me it was never going to church on Sunday unless there was a special occasion like a wedding, funeral, baptism etc.

Religion in school isn't optional but mandatory unless you have another religion (other than the official one).

Anyway, there was a time in my life 10-14 years old when I had the potential to actually embrace orthodoxism as I voluntarily wanted to do so but as I learned more about the big business that the church is and the fact that attending the service wasn't helping me in any way I became less and less interested. Spiritually, I prefer music, literature or art in general, for me it is enough and I'm now mature enough to say that agnosticism best fits my views but I do not reject the idea of a deity. It is just a larger vision of that matter. For me, God could the the Earth, the air, the Sun, the atoms that form the matter.

I wouldn't even want to get married by a priest or in a church, I know it's too early to say that for sure but it's better than being a hypocrite when I am not really religious nor agree entirely with the Bible, learnings of Christianity etc.

Besides, I wouldn't have to pay the priest for marrying me in a ceremony with rituals that I personally don't like at all. :rofl:

geallach

5th Oct 2010, 4:39 AM

I do not think Atheism directly caused violence in Russia or China, but both Stalin and Mao forced Atheism onto the people, and message was clearly to stick to it "or else".

As for Hitler, I would say that his hatred of Jewish people had more to do with his own ancestry than with any form of religion he may have had. Having studied Hitler and WWII quite thoroughly, the evidence I have seen indicates that Nazism had more to do with the economic state of Germany at the time, and the ability of Hitler to manipulate a suffering German people. Hitler's power lay in his promises to save the German people from this state, and they believed he could. Of course, when you are a dictator, you still need the people under your power if you want to retain that power, so alienating the large Christian population of Germany would have been a stupid move on Hitler's part, and for all that he was, he was not stupid. Neither Christians or Atheists are "responsible" for Hitler. That would be yet another example of trying to use the worst possible example as an example for the whole. If evil exists, then he embodied it, and comparing him to normal people of any belief system is wrong.

kiwi_tea

5th Oct 2010, 5:29 AM

Yes, and for that Stalin and Mao can be directly attacked. That isn't an edict of "atheism", though. Atheism doesn't have edicts.

I say again, I've never said Christians are responsible for Hitler, only that irrationality in the form of religious faith makes it infinitely easier to distribute unreasonable rules. You just have to invoke metaphysics. There's a lot to suggest Hitler was a genuine believer though, he takes a very consistent Christian line in all his writing, and constantly favoured science distorted to fit an explicitly creationist view of the world. There is effectively nothing to suggest his religion was merely for the purposes of propaganda.

RoseCity

5th Oct 2010, 1:51 PM

Yes, and for that Stalin and Mao can be directly attacked. That isn't an edict of "atheism", though. Atheism doesn't have edicts.
I say again, I've never said Christians are responsible for Hitler, only that irrationality in the form of religious faith makes it infinitely easier to distribute unreasonable rules. You just have to invoke metaphysics. There's a lot to suggest Hitler was a genuine believer though, he takes a very consistent Christian line in all his writing, and constantly favoured science distorted to fit an explicitly creationist view of the world. There is effectively nothing to suggest his religion was merely for the purposes of propaganda.

He also favored science distorted to fit racist, classist beliefs and called Eugenics. There was nothing metaphysical about that, and yet many, many people got on board during the late 19th and 20th centuries.

kiwi_tea

5th Oct 2010, 2:15 PM

RoseCity

5th Oct 2010, 3:11 PM

Hitler rationalised his racism in metaphysical terms, as per the "God created the races/species after their kind" rhetoric he employed. I think we're getting off track? What was your point with that comment, I can't work it out. Apologies.

My comment is in response to your previous comment -

... I say again, I've never said Christians are responsible for Hitler, only that irrationality in the form of religious faith makes it infinitely easier to distribute unreasonable rules. You just have to invoke metaphysics. There's a lot to suggest Hitler was a genuine believer though, he takes a very consistent Christian line in all his writing, and constantly favoured science distorted to fit an explicitly creationist view of the world. There is effectively nothing to suggest his religion was merely for the purposes of propaganda.
I must have misunderstood - I thought when you said that "irrationality in the form of religious faith makes it infinitely easier to distribute unreasonable rules. You just have to invoke metaphysics", you meant - irrationality in the form of religious faith makes it infinitely easier to distribute unreasonable rules. You just have to invoke metaphysics.
So I provided an example of someone invoking science, not metaphysics, to distribute unreasonable rules which millions of people accepted without the benefit of a metaphysical component. I admit I don't know how you're defining metaphysics.
And I thought when you said, "...constantly favoured science distorted to fit an explicitly creationist view of the world.", you meant that he constantly favoured science distorted to fit an explicitly creationist view of the world.
So the same example shows that he mainly and more tragically favored science distorted to fit a racist view of the world (eugenics).
I thought your argument was that religion is irrational and by the act of participating in it (believing), people are more likely to do and believe other irrational things. That religious texts can be interpreted any way someone chooses and thus dangerous.
By that logic, I could say the same thing about Science - that it's dangerous because irrational and/or crazy people can take scientific data and distort it, and millions of people end up prematurely and horrifically dead.
But I wouldn't say that because it's not logical.
Sorry I misunderstood.

Mistermook

5th Oct 2010, 3:12 PM

It's worth noting that Teddy Roosevelt used the same popular Christianized version of Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny, and "White Man's Burden" to rationalize our concentration camps in the Philippines during that war at the turn of the century. We'd adopted it before when we were rationalizing the United State's previous efforts at genocide with the Native Americans. It wasn't new or something outside of the mainstream when Hitler adopted it, it was the scope and how it was revealed to the world by the media. It was the direct and overt effort to the intent of genocide without hanging Christian concepts of conversion on things in the end, or maybe it was that the Christian world finally rebelled against the Christian concepts being associated with it. Religious ideals and morality aren't rigid since they hinge upon interpretation much of the time. Depending on the time period and inclination you can produce soup kitchens with religious sentiment or burn innocent people alive, using the same source texts and even sects.

Stalin's Purges, on the other hand, were quite explicitly about managing power, putting down dissidents, and solidifying government. Atheism? It wasn't like it was pushed as a "new religion," the whole idea was the cripple religion entirely so that there was no more power base to speak out against Stalin. Compared to Hitler, Stalin really was forging new ground here, at least in terms of the 20th century. Stalin's Purges, and Mao's "New Man" movements were really something of a response to the sort of Western Christian ideals that supported both Hitler and some many others in Europe and America. While it was definitely just as brutal in actuality, the suppression of religion in the Communist revolution was intended to suppress the sort of anti-populist "Dominionist" mechanisms that were seen, I think, as Western tools of colonialism and false authority mechanics that had repressed their representative cultures. Even if that idea wasn't explicitly set in tone with China and the USSR, it certainly was the pitch for other populist communist movements elsewhere in the world, like Africa and the Americas.

I guess what I'm suggesting, other than the history lesson, is that whether it's in its explicit appeal or in implicit response, religion was part of either movement. It's just too important reality of political life in general for it not to have been. Do I agree generally with the statement that some of these historical figures, in a world without religion at all, would have probably been complete bastards without religion just because that's the sort of people they were? Sure. But I think that it's important to acknowledge that religion provided some of them with powerful tools in rationalization, or a powerful political narrative to act against. Stalin attended an Orthodox seminary growing up, does that mean he was unaffected by religion?

Speaking of complex atheist-religious-political issues, more people should read up on Theodor Herzl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl), the Jewish atheist who was one of the driving forces for the creation of modern Israel.

kiwi_tea

5th Oct 2010, 3:41 PM

I thought your argument was that religion is irrational and by the act of participating in it (believing), people are more likely to do and believe other irrational things. That religious texts can be interpreted any way someone chooses and thus dangerous.
By that logic, I could say the same thing about Science - that it's dangerous because irrational and/or crazy people can take scientific data and distort it, and millions of people end up prematurely and horrifically dead.
But I wouldn't say that because it's not logical.

First off, I'm defining metaphysics traditionally, so: "abstract theory with no basis in physical reality". Using this sense, very few things are metaphysical. Love is chemical and social, ergo physical. Education is manifested in a complex, physical web. Religion has a physical presence too, in the people who practice it. But the actual stories of religions, like the Yahweh, or Gaia, or the invisible pink unicorn, these are metaphysical. They are literally alleged to have no (or only passing) physical existence. Basically, the metaphysical is the art of claiming to know about anything entirely speculative, unknowable, or currently unknown. So when Hitler's regime banned Darwin's "Origin of Species", they did so because the observable data (the science) didn't match up with their metaphysical beliefs about the origins of humanity (the religion) and so they opted only for falsified and speculative theories that weren't supported by the data, like special creation (the religion).

The Nazi's didn't distort science. They avoided doing it.

Secondly: Of course it's not logical. Science is evidence-based, it requires data. Hitler's science wasn't scientific, in fact it was mainly religious. Religion just requires assertion about a metaphysical quality that (usually) affects/has relevance to the physical world. Eg, "The universe is complex, and we see it in a coherent form, therefore there must be a consciousness behind it.", or, "This science can't be right because God didn't make us from apes."

RoseCity

5th Oct 2010, 5:20 PM

The Nazi's didn't distort science. They avoided doing it.
'Distort' was your word, not mine, as in 'constantly favoured science distorted to fit an explicitly creationist view of the world'.
Do you think I'm suggesting that eugenics is valid science? It was presented as science at the time, and as MisterMook pointed out, was promoted by world leaders other than Hitler, and many influential people. It has no origins in religion and if religion got dragged into it when world leaders were justifying their crimes, it seems like a side issue. Plenty of data was collected to support the theory.
Saying science requires data as if that's the end of the story isn't very useful. The data may be meaningless or it could be interpreted incorrectly. The collection method can be faulty. There can be 'bad science' just like 'bad religion'.

kiwi_tea

5th Oct 2010, 5:45 PM

Distorted science is non-science. Eugenics was a moral theory, science doesn't provide "oughts". Eugenics was never any more a science than rape is scientific. The problem with eugenics was that it was, quite simply, cruel. That said eugenics doesn't have to be cruel. Every time a foetus with a severe disorder is aborted we carry out eugenics in a victimless fashion.

The principal difference here, between science and religion, is that science can be corrected by more and better data. Religion can only be corrected by total, difficult, mind-bending revolutions, usually not in individuals. Science changes all the time, improving and improving. Scientists seek to change their own minds. Science is self-correcting. Learning. It's dynamic, and meaningful. Religion seems mostly to change one coffin at a time, usually as those who resist scientific discovery most vehemently die.

Bad science can be argued against on rational terms, using evidence. Bad religion can't be argued against because its proponents place little or no value on the reasonableness of their beliefs.

Mistermook

5th Oct 2010, 6:10 PM

I think my main issue with religion isn't because I think it's silly, although I do - sort of like believing in magic or unicorns or whatever, it's because I have an intense dislike of the inherently political nature of organized religion without any, or little, regulation on those aspects.

I suspect I'd be upset with Trekkies and Foodies if they organized and became a power bloc in politics too, and started dictating strange policy decisions based on the Prime Directive and foie gras. Worse, they could decide to bring divisions within their ranks into the political spectrum, based on centuries old recipes or esoteric interpretations of the TOS pilot episode's original script. Sometimes silly things bring people happiness and I'm all for people being happy, there's very little of that enough that anyone can afford to pass it by, but the political aspects? They're just ugly.

Politics is a brutal enough reality without bringing fiction into the matter. Once you start killing people for salting their food, or because they didn't like DS9, or because they have a different interpretation of a bronze age compilation of religious sermons written by committee and assembled as an explicit tool to control a people suffering under the weight of a failed economy...

Sure, people kill people anyways. I can't stop that, but I can try to keep people from killing each other over unicorns and persecuting people for failing to acknowledge sweet potato fries.

fakepeeps7

6th Oct 2010, 1:57 AM

Anyway, why do you think the topic of religion (or the lack thereof) is so popular?

Because it's an area where we differ, and it's an excuse to try to make others think like us. Everybody thinks they're right, and I guess some people find it entertaining to try to change the minds of others (though I think it's rare to see it happen via a discussion or lecture... or through force, for that matter).

The topic of religion gives people a reason to think they're better than everyone else (and that goes for both sides of the debate). As humans, that's one of our main failings -- and something that's caused a great deal of wars and heartache over the years.

Mistermook

6th Oct 2010, 2:06 AM

I debate things because it forces me to think and rethink my own positions and clarify my own mind and reasoning. That's whether I'm debating religion or skim milk versus whole. It's not you, it's me.

SuicidiaParasidia

7th Oct 2010, 6:12 AM

Because it's an area where we differ, and it's an excuse to try to make others think like us. Everybody thinks they're right, and I guess some people find it entertaining to try to change the minds of others (though I think it's rare to see it happen via a discussion or lecture... or through force, for that matter).

and there you have one of the support beams of my agnosticism.

nobody knows.
NOBODY knows.
you can argue with me that you* know until youre blue in the face, but your perception is of no greater value to me as the next persons'.
i go by: anything is possible. anything.
but not everything is probable. and since these things are MUCH bigger than i am, i will admit that i as a human do not hold the capacity to understand or know everything and leave it at: i do not know.

and i do not expect what i know today to be what i know tomorrow, either. things change.

i do not know if there is or is not a god.
i choose not to clutter my psyche with questions that i will not know the answers to until my last breath. i see no point. to me, religion causes more pain than pleasure, from what ive seen in the lives of MOST, and i do not want that for myself.

and on a deeper note, i think the main thing that bothers me about atheism AND religion is that both sides claim to know. but nobody does. nobody knows for sure. and people change. its not so much what IS as what we WANT it to be. some people WANT a god to exist. some people HATE that idea and so they say one doesnt. either way we do not know what IS.

*general sense

EDIT: another thing that bothers me about the religion/anti-religion scene is that i see people on BOTH sides acting much the same way; condescending, arguing, using their beliefs as a wedge rather than just shrugging it off and getting on with their lives. i want no part in that.

kiwi_tea

7th Oct 2010, 10:22 AM

I think most atheists are just agnostics using Ockam's Razor.

Volvenom

7th Oct 2010, 1:08 PM

I think most atheists are just agnostics using Ockam's Razor.

I don't know who Ockam is, but I agree with the razor.

It bores me to *fill in suitable religious swearing* how these threads about atheism or agnosticism always is taken over by the religious people wanting to spread their religion.

I also want to note that even Ghosts is more real then God, because they have actually been reported SEEN by a lot of people. So that makes it a rather more interesting discussion in my eyes.

I'm an atheist btw.

el_flel

7th Oct 2010, 1:40 PM

I think most atheists are just agnostics using Ockam's Razor.That's a good way to put it and probably rings fairly true about myself. I class myself as an atheist because I don't believe there is a god. I find the concept a little strange tbh. However I probably fall under agnosticism in the sense that I couldn't confidently say there is no such thing purely because, ultimately, I don't think we'll ever know for sure one way or the other. This is where Occam's Razor comes in - if we're never going to know then it's just easier to assume there is no such thing. I certainly don't believe in the existence of deities, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I know there are no deities. I still wouldn't class myself as agnostic though.

I don't know who Ockam is, but I agree with the razor. Occam's Razor: the principle that if you have more than one explanation for the same thing, the simplest is usually correct.

It bores me to *fill in suitable religious swearing* how these threads about atheism or agnosticism always is taken over by the religious people wanting to spread their religion. If you've looked through the Religion threads here you'll see that they were being taken over by atheist discussion, hence the creation of a non-Religion topic :)

RoseCity

7th Oct 2010, 4:23 PM

...

The principal difference here, between science and religion, is that science can be corrected by more and better data. Religion can only be corrected by total, difficult, mind-bending revolutions, usually not in individuals. Science changes all the time, improving and improving. Scientists seek to change their own minds. Science is self-correcting. Learning. It's dynamic, and meaningful. Religion seems mostly to change one coffin at a time, usually as those who resist scientific discovery most vehemently die.

Bad science can be argued against on rational terms, using evidence. Bad religion can't be argued against because its proponents place little or no value on the reasonableness of their beliefs.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. But I would say if we define 'bad science' as 'distorted science' e.g. twisting data to fit foregone conclusions, then we could define 'bad religion' as twisting religious texts to justify crazy things that you're going to do anyway.
And if 'good science' is made when scientists remain detached and follow the scientific method, then 'good religion' could be when believers are happy with their own belief system and don't think that everyone outside their belief system is wrong.

Comparing science and religion in parallel is the only way I can think to compare them. Science is based on a tool, the scientific method; religion is based on belief. I think the two things can theoretically coexist. Someone's belief in a god or gods is not in and of itself hurting anyone - someone's belief in no god is not in and of itself hurting anyone.

Princess Leia

7th Oct 2010, 6:25 PM

However I probably fall under agnosticism in the sense that I couldn't confidently say there is no such thing purely because, ultimately, I don't think we'll ever know for sure one way or the other. This is where Occam's Razor comes in - if we're never going to know then it's just easier to assume there is no such thing. I certainly don't believe in the existence of deities, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I know there are no deities. I still wouldn't class myself as agnostic though.
I agree. I don't really understand why atheists and agnostics are presented as two clearly distinct groups; very few atheists will actually say, "I know there is no God. I'm 100% certain." Most atheists are also agnostics. Agnosticism by itself is simply the view that the existence or non-existence of deities is unknowable (using the empirical evidence that is available to us). Hell, one can be an agnostic and a theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism) -- I daresay the theists who admit that it's impossible to prove the existence of deities without crossing over to the metaphysical realm are also agnostics...

Yeah, yeah, it's all semantics but not unimportant given that the general public seems to have the misconception that 'agnostic' is synonymous to 'open-minded' and 'atheist' is synonymous to 'rabid close-minded scientist holed up in the lab'. I'm sure this impacts discussions somewhat.

...then 'good religion' could be when believers are happy with their own belief system and don't think that everyone outside their belief system is wrong.
This may be a bit of a naive question but by choosing a particular belief system, aren't religious folks essentially disbelieving all the other beliefs and saying they are false? Or are there people who think that multiple beliefs can be simultaneously true? Sort of like, "Well, I believe in Vishnu but my neighbour believes in the Christian God so I dunno, maybe he'll get whisked away in the Christian heaven and maybe my Buddhist friend will get reincarnated."

Nekowolf

7th Oct 2010, 6:51 PM

Disbelieving? Yes. But are they wrong for believing something else? No. I do not think it is so much that they are all simultaneously true, rather as, we don't know so why does it matter? Who's right and who's wrong, it's a stupid question to ask, so don't bother asking it.

Also some believe that, in some respect, although they are different paths, there are core similarities which are the same (or just similar), and that basically, that is what everyone strives for; so they're all just different ways to those things.

As to why they're differentiated, perhaps it is a matter of outlook and vocal persona?

fakepeeps7

7th Oct 2010, 7:11 PM

This may be a bit of a naive question but by choosing a particular belief system, aren't religious folks essentially disbelieving all the other beliefs and saying they are false? Or are there people who think that multiple beliefs can be simultaneously true? Sort of like, "Well, I believe in Vishnu but my neighbour believes in the Christian God so I dunno, maybe he'll get whisked away in the Christian heaven and maybe my Buddhist friend will get reincarnated."

That's sort of part of what I believe, actually. But not in a literal sense. Hmmm... how to explain?

I do believe in an afterlife (as in, the continuation of consciousness), but I think it has more to do with what your beliefs were when you were alive than any one particular deity calling the shots. If you were a Christian, you'll probably see heaven and Jesus (unless you thought you were a sinner, in which case you might see hell and Satan). A Hindu might see Vishnu (or one of the other Hindu gods). A Buddhist might see... whatever Buddhists see (I'm not sure if they claim to see anything between lives... someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I guess this belief of mine comes from the idea that, while there might not actually be an Old Testament God or Krishna out there that we can see and touch, those ideas all come from the same source; people see the divine in different ways. So... my Christian friend probably will get whisked off to heaven and my Hindu friend will meet whatever gods he expects to meet.

But I understand that most religious people don't share this point of view. From what I've seen, it's either their way or the... "hell"way. I guess, in a way, I'm disbelieving those beliefs... but I believe that others believe they're real and valid. I'm not going to say they're "false"... because I don't know for sure.

RoseCity

8th Oct 2010, 5:27 PM

...
This may be a bit of a naive question but by choosing a particular belief system, aren't religious folks essentially disbelieving all the other beliefs and saying they are false? Or are there people who think that multiple beliefs can be simultaneously true? Sort of like, "Well, I believe in Vishnu but my neighbour believes in the Christian God so I dunno, maybe he'll get whisked away in the Christian heaven and maybe my Buddhist friend will get reincarnated."
Yes, I should've worded it differently. Because a believer probably is thinking other people are wrong who don't believe as they do. Maybe 'good religion is when believers think other religions are wrong, but also believe that that's between said other religions and God.'

Mistermook

8th Oct 2010, 8:38 PM

Good response too! Aren't you supposed to do that on all debates? ;)
I'm not sure what the wink is about. I thought my wording was clear that I wasn't applying my response solely to this discussion?

Shoosh Malooka

11th Nov 2010, 6:15 AM

The last post was 10-11-10. I assess that the current topic has died down and it is safe for me to provide new discussion material. Today a pastor who visits me told me a story, that he insists is true, that stumped me. First, my position is a former Christian who has turned to Deism and I feel that God is good, bad, and everything in between. The pastor is there to convince me otherwise. And now, the story:

A little boy labored to build a toy boat with his bare hands and loved it. One day he was playing with the toy boat and he pushed it hard to see how well it could sail. The toy boat caught wind, drifted from the stream and into the river, and was swept up by the current. The boy ran after it with all his heart, but the toy boat got away and the boy was sad to see it go, thinking it was lost for good. Sometime later ( months, years? ) the boy saw the toy boat in a store. He asked the store's owner to give it back to him, who answered that he must pay for it. The boy worked for however long it took to get the money and returned. The store owner sold it back to him. As the boy walked away with his toy boat he said "You owe me twice. Once for making you and once for saving you.

The boy represents Jesus, who made you and put the money on the counter ( was crucified ) to save you. The store owner and their willingness to sell back the toy boat represents your merit as a person. As I said, it stumped me today because 1. the pastor is a fast thinker and talker, and he shifts gears a lot 2. he talked so much that I couldn't hear myself think 3. it is an abstract idea and I had difficulty translating the story into a logical argument, with premises and conclusions to examine because the pastor was talking and shifting gears.

From what I had learned in Bible studies: The wages for sin is death ( Romans 6:23 ). God had to introduce this measure as a response to the original sin, from what I understand ( I could be wrong ), to contain the spreading of evil by those who use their free will to turn away from God. I should have told that pastor that he forgot to mention that the boy had a gun to the store owners head and would pull the trigger if he refused to sell the toy boat back, because the wages of sin is death. But I can't pull this move unless I know that that death is caused by God. Am I right to append this story like that and throw it back at the pastor? In other words, who is ultimately responsible for the death when a person of free will turns away from God ( the Christian God )?

RoseCity

12th Nov 2010, 11:54 PM

Well first of all I wish you had posted this in the Christianity thread.
So I read the story and had some trouble following it, but I'll throw some ideas out there. It seems to boil down to:

Boy Makes Boat - Boy Loses Boat - Boy Finds Boat In Store, Now Costs Money - Boy Earns Money, Buys Back Boat - Boy Guilt Trips Boat

Then I tried to line up the correspondences

Jesus Makes Person - Jesus Loses Person? - Jesus Finds Person (In Crack House Or Somewhere Similar? Playing Hooky From Church?Not Sure About This Part) - Jesus Saves Person Because He Died for Our Sins - Jesus Guilt Trips Person(First I Made You And Then I Had To Save You, So You Owe Me Twice)

So I'm not sure your argument that Jesus has a gun to the store owner's head is the best way to go. Because in the second story who is the store owner? And also people like the Pastor aren't interested in logic anyway. They have chosen to believe what they believe and there's really no arguing with that. You could spend days coming up with some fabulous irrefutable logic but he's not going to say, Wow I never thought of that! You're absolutely right! I actually think the whole story is kind of weak if it's supposed to be saying something about free will. Because the boat didn't do one thing on it's own - it was created, it floated away, got put in a store, was repurchased, all without any participation on its part.
And also wouldn't Jesus save someone anyway regardless of their merit as a person?

fakepeeps7

13th Nov 2010, 4:38 AM

The only thing I took away from that story is that Jesus likes using guilt trips and that he has a fragile ego that requires validation by creatures that are supposedly so worthless they shouldn't matter ("You owe me, you pissy little human!"). I would have thought that Jesus would be happy making and saving people out of the goodness of his heart and not expect anything in return.

Shows how much I know about Christianity, I guess.

ElementMK

13th Nov 2010, 6:16 AM

Where would modern religions be without guilt trips and consequences? The Abrahamic religions usually teach moral guidelines that must be followed, and it is taught that following them will result in a good consequence after death and not following them results in Something Bad™. A good portion of them also require an admission of God/Jesus/Mohammed/Elvis as a savior, but I digress.

Buddhism has a great method, though: If you screw up and fail to attain nirvana, you go through "suffering", which is just another name for reincarnation. It's not even consequential reincarnation; what one is reincarnated to be (some sects believe it is always as a human, others don't) is completely random. No matter how many times you fail, you always get another chance. Most Abrahamic religions don't give mulligans.

Of course, atheism doesn't give consequences. Live like a saint? You die. Live like a jerkoff fuckface? Yeah, you die, too. Some people still believe that this sort of concept will lead to degradation in human society. Personally, I find this hypocritical, seeing as there have been countless people who've done inhumane things under the name of religious justice. I believe in human nature leading us the right way with or without religion.

And, failing that, I believe humanity will make reality TV shows that chastise assholes. Either way works.

fakepeeps7

13th Nov 2010, 7:27 PM

The Church of Elvis?

Hail to the King, full of Grace... land.

What I don't like about the Abrahamic religions is the way the followers are taught to believe that they're nothing without God/Jesus/etc. I guess making people think they're stupid, powerless, and worthless is a great way to control them, though, which is why it happens. I just find it a little scary that people need to be told what to do all the time. That sort of power imbalance is ripe for abuse.

RoseCity

14th Nov 2010, 3:52 PM

From what I had learned in Bible studies: The wages for sin is death ( Romans 6:23 ). God had to introduce this measure as a response to the original sin, from what I understand ( I could be wrong ), to contain the spreading of evil by those who use their free will to turn away from God. I should have told that pastor that he forgot to mention that the boy had a gun to the store owners head and would pull the trigger if he refused to sell the toy boat back, because the wages of sin is death. But I can't pull this move unless I know that that death is caused by God. Am I right to append this story like that and throw it back at the pastor? In other words, who is ultimately responsible for the death when a person of free will turns away from God ( the Christian God )?
Wait, I just thought...the store owner = the devil who is holding the boat aka your soul for ransom. So in that case, you're right, why should the boy aka Jesus be a sucker and pay for the soul when he can just bust into the store with his cosmic uzi and take it back by force?

fakepeeps7

14th Nov 2010, 7:18 PM

Wait, I just thought...the store owner = the devil who is holding the boat aka your soul for ransom. So in that case, you're right, why should the boy aka Jesus be a sucker and pay for the soul when he can just bust into the store with his cosmic uzi and take it back by force?

Considering the number of morally corrupt people on the planet, Jesus would have his hands full will millions of hold-ups. Unless the devil kept all the souls in one place. One-stop shopping.

Of course, you first have to believe in the devil for that scenario to be possible. Most people on this thread don't.

RoseCity

14th Nov 2010, 9:49 PM

Sorry - I got carried away. (I don't really believe in the devil.)

Shoosh Malooka

18th Nov 2010, 7:50 PM

fakepeeps7

18th Nov 2010, 9:15 PM

That is some twisty logic he's employing there...

RoseCity

19th Nov 2010, 3:09 AM

What I meant with Jesus having the gun was the actual passage: The wages for sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. This is a fork that forces you to choose between two unequal paths with no options in between. There are also two passages in the Bible that have conflicting messages: 1. Either you're with me, or you're against me. 2. He who is not against me is with me.

The Pastor visited again and I got a little more info out of him. Before he was a Pastor he was a rebel who listened to rock & roll. He also hiked and took pictures of scenery with water. Once, he took a picture of a statue of an angel. When he developed the film he saw that the angel's reflection in the water was in the shape of a dragon ( the dragon represents the devil ). Since he had a song playing in his thoughts at the time it was a sign to him that rock & roll was the devil's music.

The turning point for him was when he woke from his bed and saw a dark cloud in the shape of a man standing by his bed. It left the room, but he had a bad feeling and he turned on the television. On it at the time was a gospel program, and it was just the comfort that he needed to hear. Thus, he decided to turn to the Lord ( out of fear ) and changed his life for the better. He believes that that cloud was the devil himself, might I add, the devil who was so smart that he convinced 1/3rd of the angels of heaven to join him against God.

Well, you have a lot more patience than I would have. I have nothing against Christianity in all its variety except maybe Jehovah's Witnesses (because I've had bad experiences with them and now if they come to my door I just tell them to bag ass before I call the cops). But I don't believe anything and can't stand to have my time wasted with tedious evangelical ramblings. Unless there were interesting philosophical issues, but there seldom is. Maybe the Pastor thinks that seeing reflections that look like dragons and dark clouds in his bedroom makes him interesting, but it just makes me wonder what he was smoking. Or more likely he dropped some mescaline the day of his big awakening.
Edit: Actually, scratch that about the mescaline - he probably just got some bad pot that made him all paranoid.
So about the wages of sin is death - did Jesus actually say that? I don't think so. This makes me want to get out my Bible and reread the Jesus stories and also the Gnostic gospels.

kiwi_tea

14th Jan 2011, 11:19 AM

It's pretty broad and indefensible to say that religion has "meagre" benefits. One tiny example? Charity. If not for religious charities millions around the world would starve. That's a fact. If not for religion whole societies would dissolve. What are we to do with an atheist Tibet, for example?

Moreover your tone when discussing religion seems downright vitriolic. You describe religion, and refer to religion in the most disparaging and unfavorable terms possible. In short, it sounds like you have something personal against religion, or that you have some sort of gut-level hatred or contempt for it. That's fine, go ahead and hate religion if you want, but you should know that you've taken a position and tone that most scientists never would.
Firstly, charity isn't unique to religious organisations. UNICEF. The Red Cross. Save the Children. There are plenty of secular charities, without the theological strings attached, offering real salvation without trying to piggyback fake salvation in at the same time.

You assume that without religion whole societies would dissolve, but that's pure bullshit. Living standards are HIGHER in less religious nations (at leastly partly because health and well-being correlates with lowering levels of faith). Tribalism and peer support exists with or without unreasonable metaphysical conceits. People without religion are fine, in fact they're better off if the statistics aren't misleading (and, sure, they might be).

Do I hate religion? It's a good question. I don't *feel* like I hate religion. I certainly do feel hatred towards some religious figures, but that's very specific, it's directed at them for holding certain beliefs and acting on them. I think you'd have to have a heart made of custard not to hate the Pope and his cronies with all the blood they have on their hands, the suffering they're so willing to cause. I hate religion, perhaps, more like I hate cancer. Most of the time I'm very interested in how it works, but when it takes someone I love I get quite a pain, and at those (rare) times then yes, I do hate it. Do I hate it right now? No. I don't *think* that I do. I just think it makes sense to discuss it, to criticise it - but also to recognise the common humanity and the common fallibility I share with my religious friends and neighbours.

Do I hate faith? No. I can say that with certainty. Faith is okay, as long as it's held extremely lightly. The only theists I've ever thought had respectable theologies were deists who rejected the concept of a personal god. Even then, I have to wonder, why a consciousness as a first cause, if indeed there is a first cause of the universe. Why so anthropomorphic?

But... ...really... ...what are my feelings here? Better to ask... ...why do you *like* religion? Seriously? Why? What is there to defend in this monster of nature that we can't find in more benign creatures?

Why not make a bunny our pet instead of a lion?

StarboardParoxysm

14th Jan 2011, 11:29 AM

Not specifically at kiwi but inspired by some of the thoughts his post brought up in my head...

I think I dislike religion. I find it so unnecessary. It can do good, but it can do so much bad, and as kiwi says, it isn't necessary for good (or for bad, I suppose too, but it certainly makes it easier - an "us against them" thing is pretty strong in the human lizard-brain).

But I don't dislike belief. I like belief. I have beliefs beyond just science (though I love science too). I'm not an atheist, but I have no religion - I guess "agnostic" would be a relatively accurate tag, but it's a bit more complicated than a shrug and "dunno."

I won't ever have a religion again. Making my beliefs personal made me question them, look critically at them, and throw out the bits I didn't like. If I were part of some organized religion, throwing out beliefs I didn't like would be discouraged, even shunned. I don't know if that's necessarily the best thing for everyone - there are many who can't really think independently very well and desperately want someone to tell them what to believe. But whether that's a by-product of religion's influence, or innate to certain individuals, I don't really know.

kiwi_tea

14th Jan 2011, 12:32 PM

Suppose we waved a magic wand and in the morning six billion people woke up atheists.

Those are choice words to put into my mouth. How could this even happen EXCEPT by some sort of divine intervention?

I never suggested, nor would suggest, this should, would or could happen. And it's a damn sight different to propose this than to propose gradual, incremental changes.

No. I'm only suggesting a slow programme of criticism that will most likely not end religion, but would hopefully keep it sufficiently humbled under the weight of reason and reality not to do too much harm. Sure, people can do harm without religion and they do. But they do a lot more harm with religion. Religious people can make far more effectively binding irrational "rules" that literally demand that they do harm because to their God - to their very concept of Nature - that harm is good. And Stalin wasn't worshipped as a god, he was feared as a violent inhumane authoritarian anti-Marxist dictator. It's pretty hard not to pretend you worship someone when the alternative is slaughter. I don't see the comparison. We need to foster a critical society, rather than a society of unreasonable tabboos. I have more faith in people's ability to be reasonable than you do. I just think they need decent conditions, and a decent formal education, hence the drastically lowered religiousity in wealthy secular nations. Goodness knows, get philosophy into schools as a core programme, that would go a long way all by itself.

Nekowolf

14th Jan 2011, 12:48 PM

"Making my beliefs personal made me question them, look critically at them, and throw out the bits I didn't like." - I would like to say though that this is one of the things about paganism many current pagans happen to enjoy. While it may change as they raise families, but for many right now, being pagan was, in some sense, a personal choice. Many weren't raised into it; hell, some were raised in very Christian families even. But this also partly leads into my next bit:

"why do you *like* religion? Seriously? Why? What is there to defend in this monster of nature that we can't find in more benign creatures?" - why are you gay? No really. I can't speak for everyone in my particular community, but you will find among many that, it's sort of like that. From my personal experience, I believed in something. I was raised in a very secular environment; my parents are not religious at all. But, I still believed in something, though I didn't know what it was. Think of it as walking into a room and being "Wait, what was I doing?" You know something's there, but not sure what. But what I do know is that it was not in the concepts of Christianity. I then started reading up on Wicca, which is the first step for many pagans. But it wasn't for me. However, thanks to that, I at least had a better understanding of my belief. And it was thanks to that, that helped lead up to me finding about Heathenry. That's when things started to come together. As I read up more about it, I realized that, that was what fit me, that is what I felt comfortable with.

It really is similar to being gay; it's a part of who you are. But, the choices that were made was the choice to look into it to try to understand, and the choice to accept what I eventually found and realized. I could never be an atheist, because it's not a conscious choice that I can make whenever I want. All of this is something much deeper.

Of course, this is all from my neopagan perspective, and I do think things tend to be different in regards to the much more ancient monotheisms and paleopagan faiths (Hinduism, Taoism, some parts of Buddhism, etc).

kiwi_tea

14th Jan 2011, 1:02 PM

It really is similar to being gay; it's a part of who you are.

Ideas and philosophical concepts are NOT magically part of who you are, especially when taken upon faith. Mere ideas - theistic or atheistic - can be overturned, should be overturned, should at the very least be scrutinised and criticised thoroughly. We should overturned our own prejudices, not give in to them blissfully. You can compare faith more with being a homophobe than with being gay. It's an irrational judgement, a prejudice about the nature of Nature. You may truly feel you could never be an atheist, I felt that way for years, so I do know it's wasn't the same as feeling I could never be gay. It's not denial, you believe in it. It would be stupid of me to claim you don't. But it's not like "being gay" at all and I'm honestly offended at that comparison. (Probably my turn, right? Half of what I say offends theists. :P ) It's wrong, it's untrue, and it's a self-serving lie that exploits a disadvantaged minority, whether you believe it or not.

A naturally occurring minority of people being gay is harmless. A large percentage of people routinely accepting that evidence and reason do not matter as much as their personal prejudices - i.e. lots of people being religious - that does massive and tangible harm.

StarboardParoxysm

14th Jan 2011, 1:47 PM

Nekowolf

14th Jan 2011, 2:35 PM

"Ideas and philosophical concepts are NOT magically part of who you are, especially when taken upon faith." Really. So now you assume you have intimate knowledge of something of which you are not. You're right in that you aren't born with those concepts. But guess what? You can certainly develop into them, and then they do become of who you are, and may become inseparable from your person. Just like something else I just referred to; a development into something.

Unless, of course, you want to exert assumed knowledge of something of which you are not a part of. And if you want to go down that road, then lets throw shit at the fan. Though I frankly, would prefer to avoid it for now.

kiwi_tea

14th Jan 2011, 2:43 PM

Oh, I don't deny you believe your perceived experiences. I don't claim to be in your head, but lots of people believe untrue things. You believe yourself. So does the Pope. So does Osama Bin Laden. How would any of you know if you're wrong? Just because you *think* you're right?

Nekowolf

14th Jan 2011, 2:59 PM

And that there is the problem with your analogy. It ignores a much more current religious movement going on right now. I'm not sure I could put a name on it for the sake of simplicity, but essentially, the idea is that every belief does have similarities to one-another. That, every belief is just a different path towards what is essentially a few goals shared by many, although in different interpretations. Basically, the idea of "who's right, who's wrong," it doesn't matter. Who cares.

People like the Pope, and Bin Laden, they most certainly are not part of this. To them, "who's right, who's wrong" is incredibly important. And as I've expressed before, I find the concept of that argument as ridiculous. Nobody knows for sure, so why the hell should we care.

Edit: What we should care about is that they are assholes, and use what tools they have (including faith) to get their way.

kiwi_tea

14th Jan 2011, 3:21 PM

That's hardly a new current in theism, heck, such Universal Unitarianism describes the attitudes of several of America's founding fathers. All spiritual questions are different versions of the same journey. Yes, yes. It's an old cop out that raises as serious problems as it supposedly resolves, hence why the uptake on it has been so slow. I agree that this is not a matter of "Who's right and who's wrong". It's not as personal as that. It's a philosophical question of "How much can we know, and how can we know it?" If religion wants to ignore that question with the response: "Hey, let prejudice reign, just make shit up, if it feels good it must be true for you!" there's some pretty big problems that are going to crop up. For example, what is the basis for criticising religious ideas that happen to be dangerous (or demonstrably wrong) under this scheme? After all, religious beliefs conflict with empirical data all the time, even the claim that gods exist conflicts with the evidence as it currently stands. And if we just totally downplay the importance of evidence in attaining knowledge, as this tactic demands, then where are we left. With everyone feeling around hopelessly in the dark. It sounds like a quick march into moral relativism, and thousands of conflicting dogmatic claims about properties of the universe (eg. "Evolution MEANT to cause humans" or "Genetically modified food is unnatural and therefore dangerous"). We're not that doomed. We can know things, and we can know how unreliable humans are when they go about just believing things. We have systems to explore and guard ourselves from our own ignorances. One such system is science. Another is (some fields of) philosophy. We don't have to sacrifice ourselves on altars of self-imposed ignorance masquerading as Deep Understandings of Life, the Universe and Everything or, goodness forbid, Salvation and Life Everlasting.

Sometimes you just gotta say it: We don't know.

Oh, that's right, you believe. I have beliefs too, given the evidence, which is entirely lacking - to the point where it might be said, tentatively but casually, that I "know". I can at least say "I know vampires don't exist, but heck I could change my mind if any evidence comes to light" with as much confidence as I can say the same of gods. Likewise, I know my table isn't an invisible purple gorilla (yeah, I still love me some gorillas). You have no such justification for your beliefs, do you? If so, what is it?

How would you know you were wrong? I'd know I was quite possibly wrong if big neon green letters appeared in the sky and we all floated ten feet in the air for no apparent reason and a choir of giant voices declared from nowhere "We are your gods". And then everyone else, globally, reported the same experience. Yeah. That'd get me thinking. Quite a few things would. Like water flowing uphill and turning into a cobra, then a teacup. Or faith-healing starting to work under controlled research conditions. Heck, even homeopathy starting to work would get me thinking about metaphysics, seeing as it hasn't ever worked in good trials in the past!

Point is. I could know if I was wrong. There are ways I could know I was wrong, and I could change my mind. How would you know?

Edit: I know this is framed as "you and me" and "which one of us might be wrong", but the general principle is much broader. How can ANYONE know that their metaphysical faith is wrong?

They can't. They've trapped themselves with this little mind game. Faith isn't wrong because it's faith. True faith doesn't need investigation. It just needs faith. Faith is faith and faith is good. What matters is to believe. Have faith. The rest is just mucking about with playdough. Faith is the real pie. There couldn't be a worse dead end in the pursuit of knowledge, and sillier cap on enquiry.

It's a tragedy of human proportions made worse with the structures that religion provides.

What we should care about is that they are assholes, and use what tools they have (including faith) to get their way.
Faith, particularly religious faith, is a pretty damned effective tool for being an asshole and getting one's way. Better than almost any other tools in our toolbox barring outright Totalitarianism. They're the worst kind of assholes: Assholes who believe they're on a mission from a supposed god. There are a few of those about, y'know? And they can be good people too. Good people who believe that they're doing good.

Nekowolf

14th Jan 2011, 3:58 PM

And the bloody same can be said for you. Atheists and the religious-types are the god damn same, but with the difference of context. The attitudes and all that crap, I see it from both sides and those sides act just like the other but for a different cause or reason. Hell, even some the arguments are similar enough; change a few words here and there, and repeat. And it's all arguing over that which is unknowable to everyone.. It's like two blind-from-birth men arguing over colors.

And there are also atheists who are complete assholes as well. Hell, given a different context, the same can be done to others. Sure, the reasoning[i] may be different, but given the ability, just another excuse would be made to exercise the use of power. Because it's just a part of humanity's dark side.

And again: [i]I do not know if I am wrong, nor can I know if I am right. And I really don't care; I believe what I do, and that's enough for me.

StarboardParoxysm

14th Jan 2011, 4:07 PM

Be calm and be nice or I will smack you with a rolled-up newspaper.

kiwi_tea

14th Jan 2011, 4:12 PM

It's like two blind-from-birth men arguing over colors.

Don't you think it's more like one person gouging their eyes out with a teaspoon and another man with the sun blinding him quite badly arguing over what the sun looks like?

I really don't care; I believe what I do, and that's enough for me.

Well. Booyah. I guess.

Edit:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

RoseCity

14th Jan 2011, 8:28 PM

^ And the cartoonist found a way to feel superior to everybody.

kiwi_tea

14th Jan 2011, 8:51 PM

xkcd.com IS superior to everybody. Fact.

I said "Fact" at the end so it must be true. :D

Rectos Dominos

14th Jan 2011, 10:19 PM

My quote pretty much describes my view on religion, as vulgar as it sounds.

Note: I'll edit this post when I change my signature

kiwi_tea

15th Jan 2011, 4:24 PM

And Stalin was indeed worshipped as a god, and as a Marxist god. Lenin and especially Stalin abolished god and substituted themselves in his place as the high priests of the new religion called socialism. Stalin made himself the pope of socialism, and hence someone to not be disagreed with. Millions of people throughout the Soviet Union worshipped Stalin as a god, some even praying to him, just as many Germans literally prayed to Adolph Hitler. That's my whole point; be damned careful about knocking off god, you might not like what gets substituted.

And there are also atheists who are complete assholes as well. Hell, given a different context, the same can be done to others. Sure, the reasoning may be different, but given the ability, just another excuse would be made to exercise the use of power. Because it's just a part of humanity's dark side.

People were forced to worship Stalin, and sure, that resulted in a genuine cult of Stalin. But bear in mind these are authoritarian conditions. This is not the exercise of some dark corner of human nature that made people follow a cult of personality to such a degree, it was the exercise of brutal power over humanity. Marxism is democratic, Stalinism is not. There's a reason the word "Stalinism" exists, to distinguish Stalin's rule from the politically useful pretence that he was remotely a Marxist. He certainly wasn't. Nor do his political theories owe much to Marx (the same cannot be said of Lenin, but then Stalinism was a 90 degree turn away from Leninism as well). Can we draw conclusions about a brutal "human nature" that emerges without religion because of Stalin's regime?

No. We can't.

Can we draw conclusions about human nature and what it is from ongoing, controlled studies of human (and sometimes great ape) behaviour? Yes we can. We know humans are unreliable observers. We know humans are very fallible. We also know that in the past commentators (the likes of Ayn Rand) have put forward drastic theories of a self-interested and very "dark" human nature that just doesn't match the social and altruistic animal that modern science and psychology has revealed. To oversimply matters quite a lot, we're more than likely a lot like chimps. When resources are adequate and responsibilities are shared fairly* we are pretty peaceful animals, barring the odd spat or two. When resources are scarce or poorly distributed, we become fierce, vicious and cannibalistic.

If evidence is anything to rely on, though, then religion plays up the worst in human nature, not the best. Honestly, how often do you see atheists blowing up abortion clinics or flying planes into towers for their gods? Give me some examples of atheism CAUSING or being used to JUSTIFY insanely unreasonable behaviour. I'm sure examples exist, there are plenty of atheists who happen to also be crazy. But religious people don't need to be crazy to do crazy things. I bet you can't find enough to even match 10% of the crazy done in the name of religious faiths.

* Social mammals seem to have a really innate sense of "fairness". Loads of really fascinating research in this field.

Nekowolf

15th Jan 2011, 5:11 PM

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0908/fuck-it-downvoters-maybe-when-school-starts-and-the-trolls-h-demotivational-poster-1250604404.jpg

Because I don't want to get hit with a rolled-up newspaper.

kiwi_tea

15th Jan 2011, 5:19 PM

Nekowolf. If I'm so very deeply wrong, isn't this simply a matter of giving me the examples I'm asking for, rather than storming out?

I accept, of course, that people rationalise the bad they do whether they're religious or not. I hope that's not what we're arguing about, because I totally agree. The argument is rather about whether religion actually provides anything uniquely beneficial, or is it just an extremely effective system for rationalising in favour of unreasonable positions with no unique benefits at all?

StarboardParoxysm

15th Jan 2011, 5:27 PM

You got two different posters to flounce in one day, kiwi. I think you win the Debate Room for this week. Well done... I guess?

Nekowolf

15th Jan 2011, 6:07 PM

To that note, then, I'd say while it does have an edge over most excuses, so does, I would say, at least two other things.

Culture*. And territory.
*which you could argue, and certainly does, tie into religion, but that much of it is put aside for now.

Culture. Tribe A follows a different culture from Tribe B. Perhaps A does things that B finds disgusting or insulting, but are perfectly normal in A's culture. Maybe these two competing tribes (and likely do) have some form of history together. Their differences of culture might be used as a means to expand on that competition, which leads to tension, or even violence, between them.

Territory. Tribe A wants a region that has precious minerals or some valuable resource. Maybe it's a good region for hunting. Tribe B has staked claim to it. So, Tribe A vilifies and assaults Tribe B for control of that territory. Furthermore, having control of valuable territories (and of course the resources within) is also often a power gain. They now have the benefits that region has to offer, and gain more power over their rivals who are unable, who either must go through Tribe A, or try to fight them for control themselves.

Religion is often used the same way. That does not make it, or territory, or culture, inherently evil. Furthermore, in cases like Christianity, I would say it's the organization of the faith more than the faith itself that is an issue. Because it's putting a few special-interest heads at the head of an organization, and giving them what is basically absolute control over it. It's basically like some kind of, I dunno, pseudo-monarchy or something.

And yes, it does offer something uniquely beneficial. Not that I would expect you to understand; it was something you eventually gave up for something else that is beneficial, to you. Just as my faith is beneficial, to me. But the problem is that you A. have people who are being taught based off old-school thoughts long since debunked but are still clung to for various reasons (to keep them believing; because they have trouble understanding the sciences; because they themselves were taught the same crap; etc), and B. because, in some cases, yes, it's for the sake of rationalizing what they already believe. But in that case, they'll use pretty much anything at hand to rationalize it, or hell, not even bother; they'll just assume they're right anyway. Christ, I see that often enough on TV.

Then you go, well what kind of benefits. But I can't explain in full because it's something quite obscure but still feelable. Then you either come to the conclusion that it's bullshit, or whatever because your mind is already made up on your opinion regarding the matter. And that makes this whole thing completely redundant. So why the hell do I even bother discussing it. I have no freaking idea why.

RoseCity

16th Jan 2011, 3:58 PM

A few years back I attended several funerals in Catholic churches and I guess the combination of sadness and wanting to belong to something and sing in a choir made me look into becoming a Catholic. A major roadblock - ha ha - was the fact that I don't believe in God. Then I realized you can choose to believe something - I guess I'm so literal minded it never occurred to me before. If there is a God, I'm sure he/she/it doesn't care whether we believe in him/her/it or not. But if we choose to believe and it turns out there was no God or no God as you conceived of it, what difference does it make? There's a big empty space of not-knowing (why we're here, where we came from, what happens after death) and people decorate that empty space with whatever they choose.
As it turned out, I found I couldn't join the Catholic Church in good conscience because of the child molestation by priests and the Church's backward views of women, among other things. And lately I've started to take issue with the word 'believe' itself and try to remove it from my vocabulary. So this is a long way of saying that I agree with Kiwi Tea that it's better to say you don't know something than to make up a story to fill the empty space. Because to me the empty space is important to keep empty. But there's many others who don't agree.
And I also agree with Nekowolf that the bad elements of religion are more a function of human nature within an organizing principle (religion) than a function of religion itself.

StarboardParoxysm

2nd Feb 2011, 8:18 PM

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, or if it deserves its own thread, but this thread has been dead for a while so... whatever.

For many, science and religion seem to be treated as polar opposites: if you believe in the current scientific theories, then you (apparently) automatically shun any kind of religious explanation for anything whatsoever. And on the other hand, if you are religious at all, you (apparently) are not supposed to believe in a scientific explanation for the origin of life, the universe, etc. Concepts like evolution - it seems that people either fall firmly on the side of religion or science. Either God created everything exactly as it was and the dinosaur fossils were just put there to fuck with us, or we evolved from single-celled organisms to fish to reptiles to mammals to apes to man and it's a completely "sanitized" process having nothing to do with any "higher power".

But I've also watched several documentaries on physics and more than once it's come up that many theoretical physicists are, if not religious, then somewhat spiritual. The closer they look at the way the world works at a deep, fundamental level, the more amazed they are at how elegantly fine-tuned it is to work the way it does; if gravity were just a tiny bit stronger or weaker, for instance, the universe would have never coalesced the way it has and we wouldn't exist. The table of the elements has a fantastic logic to it, as does the standard model, and any number of other scientific areas - things line up into neat little rows and columns. The concept of the "one inch equation" comes up constantly: that the fundamental truths of the universe, once you understand them, can be broken down into beautifully elegant equations that are only an inch long. That underlying everything is a logic that seems beyond pure chance and that perhaps some greater force (not necessarily some bearded man in the sky, but some vast unknowable intelligence) had a hand in planning all of it.

And when it comes to evolution, too - why does it have to be one or the other? I understand it's more a question of what you believe in general, not just scientifically, but if you -do- accept evolution as a factual explanation for the diversity of life on earth, why can't there also be some spiritual element involved? That some vast unknowable intelligence imbued early life with the ability to evolve and adapt, to see what might grow out of it without necessarily having to create kangaroos and fruit bats and gorillas exactly as they are?

I'm sort of rambling here but... I'm a -strong- believer in science. The more I look into the various areas of it that fascinate me, the more I see the beauty and the elegance of it, how it so marvelously explains the world around us in provable and surprisingly logical ways. But I also have a spiritual side that believes there's a bit more to life than what we can see and touch and collect data on. "Agnostic-ish-sorta" would be a relatively accurate label.

I guess I just don't see why for so many the two concepts must be complete opposites of each other, with no grey area between to allow for something like "Yes, science is an excellent explanation for many of the things in the universe, and it's possible that some great unknowable intelligence designed things the way they are for some purpose beyond our understanding." Because I sit firmly in that grey area with my belief, without feeling any sort of cognitive dissonance.

Oaktree

2nd Feb 2011, 11:52 PM

I can't speak from the religious perspective, but I do feel a sort of awe and wonder when I consider the beauty and order of nature. I don't think that that is the same thing as religiosity or spirituality, though. For one, spirituality is based on the word 'spirit', which is generally used as another word for 'soul'. I don't believe that we have souls. I think that everything that we are is contained in our physical beings and the physical world around us. While many people think that that is a cynical or inelegant viewpoint, I actually find a materialist/reductionist perspective far more elegant. The complex being that I am is contained in this small form, my mind dictated by a deceptively small organ and the effects of the environment on that small organ, and the organisms that carried on their genetic line to eventually, billions of years later, come to me and every other person and organism now alive, rose up long ago from the primordial soup. And it makes sense. We are delving into how neurons fire, when, and what it has to do with consciousness and it isn’t hard to see the possibility, or even likelihood, that chemicals came together under the conditions that were present billions of years ago, formed more and more complex molecules, and eventually became self-replicating organisms. It is spontaneous order. And then I consider that this planet is covered in life, when billions of years ago, it would have been mostly molten rock and noxious gasses. Life on this planet actually shaped the atmosphere and made it more hospitable to later life forms. It is amazing how well life adapts to whatever conditions it is thrown into. There are few places on earth that don’t contain some kind of life, regardless of the harshness of the environment. But this makes sense, too. The small degree of fallibility of DNA replication and repair means that we have life that lasts, but that also changes. That ability to change means that a whole slew of different types of organisms are possible, given the time span, and the competitive nature of life means that those with any kind of advantage or ability to inhabit a niche will do so.

But anyway, I think that religion is too lacking in reasoning and logic to truly be held up side by side with science. There are some kinds of spirituality that aren’t so dogmatic (Spinoza’s or Einstein’s pantheism, for example), which I think can be blended with science (Einstein is a fairly good example of this, though he did make the mistake of dismissing quantum mechanics by saying that “God does not play dice”). The kind of dogmatic organized religion that many people follow, though, simply doesn’t have a place in science and, all too often, hinders scientific advancement. The philosophical assumptions involved in religion are vastly different from those involved in science. Science is primarily empirical, with a degree of rationalism thrown in. Religion is primarily hermeneutical, with a bit of rationalism thrown in. These kinds of epistemic differences are the primary causes of an inability for philosophers to fail to agree on things, yet people expect that an individual can somehow apply these conflicting epistemologies appropriately, without overlap of one epistemology being applied incorrectly to the other field. Further, I think that it is an error to be so philosophically “flexible” to change one’s application of epistemology from situation to situation. Epistemology is about the appropriate means to find knowledge. If you switch your epistemological usage from situation to situation, you are likely making unsupported assumptions to decide when to use what epistemology. How do you know that you are switching under the correct circumstances? It’s hard enough to know whether you’ve chosen the correct epistemology, let alone trying to determine how to correctly vary your epistemic usage.

I do want to comment on a particular thing you mentioned, HP. You mentioned the concept that, if the universe had somehow formed in a slightly different way (ex. Gravity being slightly stronger or weaker), that life would not exist. I’ve often heard this used as a “proof” for the intervention of God, but my problems with this particular argument extend beyond that. My take is that the universe is the way it has to be. The fact that this reality exists makes it a certainty. I don’t believe in probability, in the sense that people use it to refer to random occurrences. I think that the only way the universe could have turned out is the way it is now. But, for those who do believe in random chance, think of it this way: of those random chances, something had to be the final outcome. Unlike our understanding of quantum wave functions, a particular thing or event on the macroscopic level cannot be in multiple states of being all at once. It has to “pick” one, so to speak. Therefore, no matter how steep the odds might seem, it had to happen one way and it happened the particular way it did, not any other way. I just don’t understand the weight that people put on the fact that an event (which I think can only happen one way according to causality, but which we’ll call probabilistic for the sake of those who don’t believe in determinism) happened a particular way, when it had to happen some way. Further, if you (general; I’m not specifically talking to HP) want to talk hypotheticals, how do you know that this is the one and only universe? We can’t know if there are other universes because our perceptions are limited to this one, but we don’t know that there weren’t other universes before or simultaneous with this one that played out the possibilities that didn’t happen at the beginning of this universe. If all possibilities play out somewhere, we are no more fortunate than someone who rolls a six-sided die and comes up with at least one six after 10,000 rolls. I’m not saying that there are other universes, or that there is a particularly great likelihood of this, but it seems about as likely to me, if not moreso, than the idea of God having anything to do with this.

I agree that there is more to reality than that which we can sense. But what I mean when I say that is that we do not experience reality directly, so there is a degree of fallibility to our senses. To delve into Kantian philosophy, we can only experience what our senses tell us we are experiencing, but we cannot experience the thing-in-itself, reality, directly. There are also certain senses that other animals have that we do not. There are some things that we cannot perceive without the aid of instruments. I don’t believe that our experiences are the be-all-end-all of reality, but I also don’t think that we can realistically assume anything about the nature of what we cannot sense.

RoseCity

3rd Feb 2011, 4:38 PM

I'm sort of rambling here but... I'm a -strong- believer in science. The more I look into the various areas of it that fascinate me, the more I see the beauty and the elegance of it, how it so marvelously explains the world around us in provable and surprisingly logical ways. But I also have a spiritual side that believes there's a bit more to life than what we can see and touch and collect data on. "Agnostic-ish-sorta" would be a relatively accurate label.

I guess I just don't see why for so many the two concepts must be complete opposites of each other, with no grey area between to allow for something like "Yes, science is an excellent explanation for many of the things in the universe, and it's possible that some great unknowable intelligence designed things the way they are for some purpose beyond our understanding." Because I sit firmly in that grey area with my belief, without feeling any sort of cognitive dissonance.

I think a lot of people believe in science the way religious people believe in their God. Anybody outside their belief system becomes 'wrong'. If you view science as a discipline created by humans to study the workings of this universe, then there should be no conflict of interest between being a scientist and also having a spiritual life.

The reason I'm drawn to Buddhism is because it doesn't try to explain anything, and focuses on aspects of the human condition like death and suffering. My husband is a Zen Buddhist, but so far I haven't been able to get into the practice of it, partly because I don't like meditating.

kattenijin

3rd Feb 2011, 5:19 PM

Imagine this - monitoring several billion humans (and a number running easily into the trillions for every single living thing) for every second of every hour of every day... forever.

Actually, from a purely technological standpoint, we have the capeability to do this. We don't currently have the economic capeability, nor social desire to do so though.

kiwi_tea

3rd Feb 2011, 5:28 PM

The problem as I see it is this word "spirituality". It covets all the joys and amazement - the agape wonderment - without allowing for the fact that these are found elsewhere. Spirituality... ...well... ...it's the wrong word. It's a word that mixes two distinct contents in some very ugly ways - conflating prejudicial claims about the universe with our emotional being. It excludes a worldview based on scientific evidence - which can be an incredibly emotional way of understanding the world. This is simply an inadequacy of the English language. There is no common word that aptly describes the humanism of daily life that isn't grounded in such nonsensical ideas as a "spirit".

There is an inherent conflict between science - which tries to battle prejudicial claims about the nature of the universe by bolstering claims with evidence - and spirituality - which tends to manifest itself as prejudicial claims about the nature of the universe made as vague "explanations". The problem is that science keeps spirituality in retreat, it has done so for a long, long time. It encroaches constantly into territories that spirituality has claimed for itself. Why, just look at neuroscience starting to gnaw at dualism - the very idea that we overselves might be spirits - ghosts in the machine - is in dire peril. (Understatement of the year).

I think, perhaps, this could be resolved if we said rather than "Some scientists are very spiritual", when they profess their agape wonderment at the universe, we instead said "These scientists are very poetic" or something. Unless, of course, they are actually literally religious/spiritual. The co-opting of religious terminology, words like "spiritual" and "god" - to describe these feelings only bolsters the forces that oppose scientific inquiry. I much prefer Einstein's metaphors of art to science - "After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are artists as well." - than his metaphors of spirituality to science - "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." And you know, it's at least partly because Einstein is fighting a losing battle by trying to salvage a word like "religion" the same way that deists as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams did. "Religion", "spirituality", these are not words worth saving, they occupy the same impotent territory as words like "God", which Einstein rightly condemned: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." What is "religious" or "spiritual" in human understanding is nowadays inextricably associated with the worst of rubbish and lies, even as these are also terms applied to some the noblest of sentiments.

The word "spiritual" needs a replacement that can be used by artistic and emotional scientists: "Creative", "poetic", "emotive", "astounding".

Was Feynman "spiritual"? Not in the slightest. Was he profound, emotional, humane, and creative? Very much so.

That said, I'd like to think that at my best I'm the sort of person that might be accused, falsely, of spirituality, by people who believe the word is useful. I'd get what they meant. I'd just think they were using a terrible, inaccurate word.

And when it comes to evolution, too - why does it have to be one or the other? I understand it's more a question of what you believe in general, not just scientifically, but if you -do- accept evolution as a factual explanation for the diversity of life on earth, why can't there also be some spiritual element involved? That some vast unknowable intelligence imbued early life with the ability to evolve and adapt, to see what might grow out of it without necessarily having to create kangaroos and fruit bats and gorillas exactly as they are?

This is fine as a hypothetical. As a creative speculation. As art. It's just that the moment someone attaches "I believe/know this is true" to such a purely speculative statement they have overstepped the boundaries of good sense. At that point everyone else has the right to ask, "How do you know?" as often as they like until the claimant provides evidence that they have the answer to this incredibly important question, or otherwise until the claimant opts to STFU and stop lying. It's not a very fun intellectual stance to be the holder of baseless prejudices. It provokes uncomfortable questions like "Why do you believe Asians are inferior to Causasians?" or "Why do you believe that this alleged infinite intelligence set everything off?"

Oaktree

3rd Feb 2011, 5:43 PM

I much prefer Einstein's metaphors of art to science - "After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are artists as well."

A little off-topic, but I find this very interesting. Aristotle referred to technical skills/knowledge as art. He considered art to be any body of knowledge that could explain the causes of things. Science would be classed as an art by this definition.

I completely agree with you on the matter of needing a new word for the emotion involved in a humanist/reductionist/secular/etc. view of the world. I'm tired of having to begin from an inherently unscientific word in order to explain the feelings that I have when I contemplate nature.

kattenijin

4th Feb 2011, 5:25 PM

I was referring to the fact that it would be just about impossible for a 'being' to monitor every single human/creature, although I assume you did realise this as you said 'from a purely technological standpoint'. Just incase. :D

Really? How many kinds of sentient non-humans have you met? Considering how much of the universe we haven't explored, how do you know this for certain?

kiwi_tea

7th Feb 2011, 5:55 PM

And when it comes to evolution, too - why does it have to be one or the other? I understand it's more a question of what you believe in general, not just scientifically, but if you -do- accept evolution as a factual explanation for the diversity of life on earth, why can't there also be some spiritual element involved? That some vast unknowable intelligence imbued early life with the ability to evolve and adapt, to see what might grow out of it without necessarily having to create kangaroos and fruit bats and gorillas exactly as they are?

The other problem is that... ...well. What is there for the spiritual element to do? We're well on our way to understanding abiogenesis, and we have sufficient (although not always perfectly detailed) naturalistic explanations for evolution. Why try to insert a spiritual explanation for something that already has an adequate explanation? It's like proposing a spirit involved in making the television work. We know how it works. We have not need to invoke magic. We can always fill the gaps with magical claims - spiritual wot-iffs - but that just invites the sort of conflicts that arise between science and religion.

Because spiritualism doesn't allow its adherents to KNOW anything. It just allows them to claim to know what isn't yet known, and adherents tend to get very hostile when inevitably actual naturalistic knowledge starts contradicting their spiritual claims.

(Edit: I was tempted to use the "Of course a stopped clock is right twice a day" metaphor here except that it is quickly tortured by the situation. We have to imagine the clock has a near infinite number of hours, instead of just twelve or twenty-four. Hehe. I hate metaphors. They're never *quite* right enough.)

That leaves us with a choice... ...agnosticism about spirituality, or outright non-spiritualism. The problem with agnosticism is that it tends to be held entirely inconsistently. If we are to be consistently agnostic about things for which there is no evidence, we're compelled to be agnostic about, well... ...everything. There is an unevidenced alternative explanation for anything we might imagine: The ghost that makes the television operate, the invisible red string that makes people fall in love, the parrot spirit that lives inside books and makes the words work (if it wasn't there they wouldn't).

Why can't we just enjoy the theories of spiritualism as fictions? As almost certainly untrue metaphors -- useful for making metaphorical comparisons, great for fiction -- rather as particularly likely possibilities? I love the Bible stories as pseudo-historical fictions. Human creativity is marvelous. It need not be perverted and wasted into spiritualities. It's fun to imagine a god, but there's no reason to trust our imaginings are right. We don't know any gods. All we know is the natural world, and supernatural theories have an *exceptionally* poor track record. There hasn't been a successful supernatural theory about the world yet, in terms of evidence. Why place our faith in a failed and constantly failing model?

I don't mean to just bash away at your comment, HP, I just think it opens up a lot of questions. I'm always keen to hear your response to them.

StarboardParoxysm

7th Feb 2011, 6:32 PM

By "spiritual" I just mean some sort of... for a lack of a better term, beyond-ness (though a poster above mentioned it implied a spirit and thus a soul - I -do- believe in some concept of a "soul" or personal spark/essence/something). But by "spiritualism" I mean simply a vague, non-specific concept of some greater force (or combination of forces) behind the scenes. It just seems like the more I learn about science and the way the universe works, the more incredible and amazing it is, in ways that I don't think can be explained by chance. I think there are some elements of design to it, a beautiful symmetry and harmony that I find to me implies some intent or intelligence behind it. Something vast and unknowable and unfathomable. Even the words I'm using here are not the right ones but I don't have the right ones for it.

The parts of my belief beyond accepted scientific fact are based on my own experience - things that I myself have experienced time and again and know to be true and accurate, yet I cannot for the life of me think of any scientific reason that would explain what I have experienced. And that in no way takes away my fascination and belief in science at all. They work together in my head, happily at ease with each other with no conflict between them. If I had not experienced these things many times over many years with consistency, I would probably be able to write them off as imagination or fiction. Perhaps someday what I have seen could be 100% explained by scientific methods, just as in the past some things that people believed to be magic are now known to be electromagnetism or gases or whatever.

Hell, I'd love it if that were the case - it would be more to understand and to learn, and more fascinating science to unlock the mysteries around us. No hostility here if science can explain it all eventually.

For me, both things are equally true - science is the best explanation we have for the way everything works around us, and there is some greater -something- too. At least part of it -is- based on feeling, but I think as long as there's room for questioning and for remaining open to new evidence, having some sort of agnostic beliefs is not necessarily a weakness or a crutch, but can work together in harmony in a single mind. Seems to work for me, anyway.

Also this thread is very confusing with our two avatars. Therefore I demand you make yours blue or something. Because mine matches my "administrator" badge. So there. :mod:

Oaktree

7th Feb 2011, 10:26 PM

That leaves us with a choice... ...agnosticism about spirituality, or outright non-spiritualism. The problem with agnosticism is that it tends to be held entirely inconsistently. If we are to be consistently agnostic about things for which there is no evidence, we're compelled to be agnostic about, well... ...everything. There is an unevidenced alternative explanation for anything we might imagine: The ghost that makes the television operate, the invisible red string that makes people fall in love, the parrot spirit that lives inside books and makes the words work (if it wasn't there they wouldn't).

I think it is possible to be philosophically agnostic, while practically acting on or choosing to believe one thing over others. It is extremely difficult to prove anything if you ask the question 'why?' too many times or if you go right to the metaphysics. If you are a skeptical person by nature, you have to be equally as skeptical of things that seem to you to be true but have no basis to be believed based on your epistemology as things that seem utterly ridiculous.

To me, solipsism seem utterly ridiculous, but I can't prove that it isn't the case, so, philosophically, I can't admit to non-solipsism. I also can't prove that my mind is the only mind, so I can't admit to solipsism, either. However, I choose to believe that there are other minds, so I, for all intents and purposes, am not a solipsist, but I simply can't prove that particular belief. The same can be said for my opinions on religion. I can't prove that there is no God, but I think that it is unlikely, so I am essentially an atheist; I just call myself agnostic to be as accurate about my thoughts on the matter as possible.

kiwi_tea

7th Feb 2011, 11:09 PM

See, I sort of take the opposite stance. I'm certainly technically agnostic, in the sense that I freely admit all the trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of possible gods are possible. They're just not evident. It's agnosticism in the same sense that I'm agnostic about things like vampires or... ...well... ...any little metaphysical or supernatural thing I care to imagine. They *could* all exist. But I don't go around being afraid a vampire might get me because there's just no evidence that vampires are there to get me. In this sense, absence of evidence really does equal evidence of absence, just not proof of it. If this is how I feel about vampires, and also how I feel about god, why should I say "I'm decided about vampires" but not "I'm decided about gods". It seems that if I declare myself "agnostic" I would only be doing it through social pressure to "respect" the act of having faith, but I don't respect faith at all. I respect the humanistic aspects of some organised religions, but not the spiritual faith claims. I respect a lot of what the Salvation Army does, but I have no respect for the motivations and beliefs that permeate and severely taint their good work. I mean, the Catholic Church has a free councilling service, but it makes me slightly ill that if I send someone I care about there part of the "counselling" is all this rubbish about their "relationship" with "God".

One of the problems I still see with god theories remains that consciousness is almost certainly material. Damage my brain, you damage my soul. It seems so anthrocentric to propose that an intelligence - something we've only ever observed in flesh and bone animals - produced by their brains - is the cause of everything. It's as if because we like to make things we wish we were intentionally made. I appreciate your feelings, HP, I empathise, or at least I sympathise. Science is reductive. There are things we cannot ever know, that science can never model. I cannot, through science, know what you were feeling last Thursday. I doubt I can ever know something like that, there are too many variables both in your and your environment for me to even begin to study that. We are, even collectively, finite, and much smaller than the world we inhabit. There's a lot out there and we can only ever know parts of it. I just don't see why we should suspect there's a big mind out there.

kattenijin

8th Feb 2011, 12:48 AM

One of the problems I still see with god theories remains that consciousness is almost certainly material. Damage my brain, you damage my soul.

This, to me dosen't follow. I had a cousin (she's since passed away) who, when younger had a brain tumor. The decision was made to try to operate. Unfortunately, while the tumor was succesfully removed, the resulting trauma left her paraplegic, and externally only able to operate at the level of a six year old. At the same time, you could see the person she had been before, for lack of a better word, "trapped" inside. For the first couple of years you could see this inner "her" trying to re-assert herself, but as the years went by, the struggle lessened. At some point "she" gave up, and basically died. The persona left behind, that of the six year old mentality, also changed at this time. It was only a couple of years later the physical body also gave out. That inner her, always felt like her "soul" to me; and the other, more manifest personality, was not, not even as she was when she was six. It was a broken something, that became more broken when the "real" soul died.

There's a lot out there and we can only ever know parts of it. I just don't see why we should suspect there's a big mind out there.

As we currently experience only a percentage of 4 dimensions of what is probably more like 11 dimensions, there is a lot of..."area" for there to be a corporal entity. Also, given how vast the universe is (some of those "stars" are actually distant galaxies) it is possible for a being to just be too distant for us to observe at this time.

I don't want to sound like I'm the side of current organized religions though; because I'm not. There isn't enough evidence to prove the correctness of those doctrines either.

I believe in the posibility (more like a strong probability)of there being a "creator" being, but we can't possibly comprehend that being at our current level of development. Don't know if we ever will get there. Like HP, I see too many connections between things that we have learned through science for existence to be entirely random.

kiwi_tea

8th Feb 2011, 1:47 AM

I don't want to make too strong a comment about such a personal story, kattenijin, but it is worth saying that someone with brain damage can still in many senses be there, partially - they can even be "trapped inside" - it depends on what parts of the brain have been damaged. It's perfectly possible that recognisable parts of your cousin were trapped inside, or even that your cousin's whole personality as you knew her was trapped inside. That said, a LOT of the time people's belief that their loved ones are trapped inside is firmly contradicted by the kind of damage that has occurred - for example, there was almost certainly nobody trapped inside the body that once belonged to Terry Schiavo, but her parents believed she was there inside out of fear, grief, and wilful ignorance. But I am not saying that's what happened in your case. I do not know. It all depends on the extent of the damage.

The universe is not any less random if there is a creator. Nor any more random if there is not one. It's worth remembering that so many things in the universe "work" because things that don't work... ...don't work. They do not need a supernatural designer to work, or to have become the way that they are. The entirely materialist system of evolution makes astoundingly complex things without any input from a designer at all. Even if gods exist, no god contributed to making the cheetah, it was made without any god's input at all. No god made the hummingbird either, and look at it hover! It happened through a material system, the force of its environment, and a vigorous exchange of genetic material - material being the important word here. There is nothing supernatural in the making of animals, nor anything conscious (Edit: outside of the consciousness of the animals themselves). Why should we suspect something supernatural in the making of Physics? We've never been right with that theory before - that some supernatural creator had an active hand in making stuff - only ever decidedly wrong.

A giant creator overmind does not resolve any problems we have about the nature of reality. The only thing that a giant "overmind" does is raise the question of where the overmind came from and what it's made of. It doesn't answer anything. Suddenly we get into an infinite regression. Did an overovermind make the overmind? Is the overmind outside of the physical world? If so, how can there be an overmind without a brain-like organ to make it happen?

kattenijin

8th Feb 2011, 2:38 AM

I don't want to make too strong a comment about such a personal story, kattenijin, but it is worth saying that someone with brain damage can still in many senses be there, partially - they can even be "trapped inside" ... <snip>

I can agree with that, even to the extent of Ms. Schiavo not being there due to there being no brain function. As I said w/my cousin, once the soul was gone the body soon followed. Ms. Schiavo's body was only kept "alive" due to external means. You do need brain function for a soul to function in a body, but I don't think broken brain = broken soul, although the inverse may be true. (I can already hear the shreaks about what happens when you die.) (Not specifically from you.)
The universe is not any less random if there is a creator. Nor any more random if there is not one.
Can we prove ths? No, not any more than we can prove/disprove the existence of a creator. To me, this is an article of faith of the religion of science.
A giant creator overmind does not resolve any problems we have about the nature of reality. The only thing that a giant "overmind" does is raise the question of where the overmind came from and what it's made of. It doesn't answer anything. Suddenly we get into an infinite regression. Did an overovermind make the overmind? Is the overmind outside of the physical world? If so, how can there be an overmind without a brain-like organ to make it happen?
We already get the "something came first" action-reaction tossed out the window with quantum physics; many points of which, even 50 years ago would be treated as "hogwash".

The best we can do is say "we don't know what we don't know, but we're certainly going to try to find out". Like I've said before, we only experience a small fraction of "reality", and there's a lot of room "out there".

Oaktree

8th Feb 2011, 3:14 AM

Can we prove ths? No, not any more than we can prove/disprove the existence of a creator. To me, this is an article of faith of the religion of science.

It seems to me that what kiwi_tea was getting at is that you wouldn't be here to talk about orderly/disorderly universes if the universe were disorderly. And I don't mean that just from the sense of a conscious being. If the universe were disorderly, it likely wouldn't be stable enough to do much of anything. The universe can essentially only establish itself in a relatively orderly manner, so, even without a creator, it would have to be orderly.

We already get the "something came first" action-reaction tossed out the window with quantum physics; many points of which, even 50 years ago would be treated as "hogwash".

The best we can do is say "we don't know what we don't know, but we're certainly going to try to find out". Like I've said before, we only experience a small fraction of "reality", and there's a lot of room "out there".

Would you be referring to relativity? There are examples of relativity breaking the chain of causality, but I can't think of any examples of quantum mechanics doing so. In relativity, we have a pretty good grasp on what rules causality-breaking events follow, even if we cannot explain how causality manages to be broken. Causality is generally broken when things travel close to the speed of light and only from certain frames of reference. In a proto-universe without the physical rules we have now, I'm not sure that the same could be said. I couldn't say one way or another whether causeless creation could happen in a proto-universe, but using the laws of our physical reality on a reality that doesn't have those laws seems a flawed method of coming to a conclusion.

kiwi_tea

8th Feb 2011, 3:19 AM

Kattenijin, it sounds like what you are proposing is a form of substance dualism, or the idea that the mind/soul is a fundamentally different substance to the body, not just a process of the brain. The philosopher Paul Churchland has a very simple response to this stance:

If there really is a distinct entity in which reasoning, emotion, and consciousness take place, and if that entity is dependent on the brain for nothing more than sensory experiences as input and volitional executions as output, then one would expect reason, emotion, and consciousness to be relatively invulnerable to direct control or pathology by manipulation or damage to the brain. But in fact the exact opposite is true. Alcohol, narcotics, or senile degeneration of nerve tissue will impair, cripple, or even destroy one's capacity for rational thought. Psychiatry knows of hundreds of emotion-controlling chemicals (lithium, chlorpromazine, amphetamine, cocaine, and so on) that do their work when vectored into the brain. And the vulnerability of consciousness to the anesthetics, to caffeine, and to something as simple as a sharp blow to the head, shows its very close dependence on neural activity in the brain. All this makes perfect sense if reason, emotion, and consciousness are activities of the brain itself. But it makes very little sense if they are activities of something else entirely.

- p20, Matter and Consciousness, Paul M Churchland (author's italics)

What happens to us when we die? No need for shrieks. We've stopped happening when we die. Nothing happens to us anymore. We are no longer there - everything that makes us us has stopped doing its thing.

We already get the "something came first" action-reaction tossed out the window with quantum physics; many points of which, even 50 years ago would be treated as "hogwash".

So... ...if you're willing to make that concession then... ...why are you insisting that something had to come before (ie, something had to make) the universe? And a mind, no less. A creative mind. Minds definitely come from somewhere. As far as we can tell, they come only from brain-like organisations of matter. The fact that there is a lot of room out there does not make it probable that there is a disembodied consciousness. Given there's not even a hint of precedent for such a being, it's seems highly improbable. At least, it's only as probable as anything else for which there is no evidence: Such as every lion in the entire world having the soul of a dog.

No, not any more than we can prove/disprove the existence of a creator. To me, this is an article of faith of the religion of science.
Nobody needs to disprove something for which there is no evidence. It isn't a going theory. It is simply unreasonable to posit the existence of something for which there is no evidence, unless it is perhaps a useful hypothetical within a very specific context, like the Higgs Boson. Is "a creator" a useful hypothetical in a very specific context? Or is it just a meaningless goo that people like to squeeze into cracks in walls?

We can't prove the existence of a creator, we can only say: There is no evidence that a creator exists.

It's the same sort of statement as: There is no evidence that lions are all inhabited by dog spirits.

(P.S. I have developmental dyscalculia (http://scientopia.org/blogs/childsplay/2010/08/18/dyscalculia-explained-strategy-memory-attention/). It's sort of the mathmatical version of developmental dyslexia, and it means I cannot cope very well with physics. It is, to be honest, too much effort for me to wrangle with a lot of formulaic tasks. I'm good with my mother tongue, because I acquired it in a developmentally different way to second-language learning, but I am terrible at second languages (unless through immersion), and also at learning to read music (learning by ear I am fine). I can't even read analogue clocks, I try to, but I take many minutes to work out the time, and often I read them wrong. Fine with logic, which again requires somewhat different neurological systems. Physics will always be out of my reach. I'll leave it to Oaktree and others to discuss Physics. I suppose though, I could even say, that my neurology ensures I don't have a soul for maths.) :rofl:

kattenijin

8th Feb 2011, 4:41 AM

It seems to me that what kiwi_tea was getting at is that you wouldn't be here to talk about orderly/disorderly universes if the universe were disorderly. And I don't mean that just from the sense of a conscious being. If the universe were disorderly, it likely wouldn't be stable enough to do much of anything. The universe can essentially only establish itself in a relatively orderly manner, so, even without a creator, it would have to be orderly.

It is possible I misunderstood what she was saying, my take was she was saying that the universe exists the way it does because it is the only way it can exist; that the physical properties it has are the only ones it can have. Why must this be so? Why can't lightspeed be slower/faster? Why must gravity, electricity, fusion, work the way they do? Etc, etc, etc, for whatever particular branch of science you wish. We do know that at the moment of creation, there were other possibilities than the current universe we live in. Why did the possibilities that "got selected" "get selected"? Science may say it was entirely random, or that some conditions are more probable than others, but we don't really know why yet. I'm just saying that in my personal opinion, I see too many connections/correlations for it to be "just chance", it looks like there was purpose behind it. I could be wrong, who knows?

Would you be referring to relativity? There are examples of relativity breaking the chain of causality, but I can't think of any examples of quantum mechanics doing so. In relativity, we have a pretty good grasp on what rules causality-breaking events follow, even if we cannot explain how causality manages to be broken. Causality is generally broken when things travel close to the speed of light and only from certain frames of reference. In a proto-universe without the physical rules we have now, I'm not sure that the same could be said. I couldn't say one way or another whether causeless creation could happen in a proto-universe, but using the laws of our physical reality on a reality that doesn't have those laws seems a flawed method of coming to a conclusion.

No I'm talking about physics at a quantum level, where particles light-years apart "talk" instantaniously (faster than lightspeed), and sometimes particle B will "respond" to particle A before particle A "talks". Of course, one of the lovely things about quantum mechanics, is that the act of being observed is part of the results you get from observing (OUCH! Makes my head hurt!).

What happens to us when we die? No need for shrieks. We've stopped happening when we die. Nothing happens to us anymore. We are no longer there - everything that makes us us has stopped doing its thing.

I don't think science has proven this any more than religion has disproven it. We do not know.

...why are you insisting that something had to come before (ie, something had to make) the universe? And a mind, no less. A creative mind.

I'm not insisting it had to come before, I'm just saying that in my opinion there is too much interconectivity for me to believe it was random, hence a "god". That's what makes me a deist, the belief in a god. I know it drives the atheists nuts ;), but I drive the theists just as nuts when I tell them their "knowable" god is a bunch of hooey too, lol!

I'm equally against "There is no god." and "God is XYZ."

Do I know if I'm right in my belief? Nope. Don't really care, don't really care if anyone agrees. My belief makes me happy, that's all that matters. Why do I sometimes feel the need to stick my oar in and stir the pot? Usually, I just want to open up the possibilities when people say "XYZ is TRUE!" and I think the answer is "We don't know."

The truth is, regardless of evidence one way or another, we have never had proof one way or another, and we are all "wrong" untill such proof comes along. In the meanwhile, we all do what we can to make ourselves happiest in our beliefs.

Oaktree

8th Feb 2011, 8:57 AM

No I'm talking about physics at a quantum level, where particles light-years apart "talk" instantaniously (faster than lightspeed), and sometimes particle B will "respond" to particle A before particle A "talks". Of course, one of the lovely things about quantum mechanics, is that the act of being observed is part of the results you get from observing (OUCH! Makes my head hurt!).

My knowledge of physics is not particularly vast, but I do know that the observer effect is merely because, in order to observe something, you must physically interact with it. Sensory information is carried on particles and waves and those same particles and waves will impact the particles/waves you are observing. From a man in one of my classes who does physics for a living, I have heard that particles can also collapse their own wave functions because they 'communicate' through photons and those photons act in much the same manner as an observer would. At least, that was what I got from his explanation. I know he said that particles can collapse their own wave functions, but hopefully I didn't screw up the explanation. :D

As to other unexplained phenomena in quantum mechanics, maybe this is my own sort of faith here, but I think we will eventually have a better understanding of what is going on and why. I don't believe that quantum mechanics contradicts the laws of physics, like many people would claim, partly because that is analytically impossible and partly because we simply don't know enough about it to make that call. I think we will eventually be able to grasp how particles can interact or seem to interact faster than light, how they can seem to be in two places at once, and so forth, and I think it will follow clear-cut laws, the way the rest of physical reality does.

kiwi_tea

8th Feb 2011, 9:05 AM

I don't think science has proven this any more than religion has disproven it. We do not know.
Well, we know through neuroscience that the brain is the cause of the human mind. We don't know all the details yet, but if you're betting against a purely physical source of source of consciousness then... ...geez, good luck. It's a bit like declaring we don't know the Earth isn't flat shortly after Magellan finished circumnavigating.

The question arises immediately. If the brain isn't the cause of the soul - if science has things all wrong about the mind - why does it appear that specific parts of the brain cause specific parts of the system that we tend to call "ourselves" or our "souls"?

How can a soul stay intact when its cause is destroyed? And why do you think it does, despite only evidence to the contrary?

Vanity?

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?"
- Ecclesiastes 1.1-2

The truth is, regardless of evidence one way or another, we have never had proof one way or another, and we are all "wrong" untill such proof comes along. In the meanwhile, we all do what we can to make ourselves happiest in our beliefs.
We've never had proof either way about vampires. Indeed, we can't ever have proof that vampires don't exist. Do you apply this attitude wherever it's applicable?

I mean, I guess we can't ever really have proof that humans can't fly by jumping off of buildings, either. We can only have a body of evidence. Or no evidence. Who knows. Maybe next time a person jumps from a building they'll just hover. After all, can't prove that they won't.

People who say humans can't fly when they jump unaided from buildings - because there is no evidence that they can - are just as wrong as people who say that it's possible, nay probable, that some people can just levitate after they leap.

Nekowolf

8th Feb 2011, 1:50 PM

Right there. Vampires. Vampires and unicorns and what ever else.

But you know what, that's not religion is. That is how you are defining it, a definition created by you, and refuted by you. It is how -you- see it, but practitioners of various faiths do not. You are putting a material substance to refute that which is immaterial, which is based on experience and thought rather than numbers and pattern. You, and many other atheists, argue the the concrete, the physical, the objective, the material, when faith is none of those; it is abstract, it is subjective. As someone said in another conversation at another site, science tells you how things work, the mechanics behind the universe, the properties of things, but it does little for the experience of it, the emotion, the -meaning- of things. It is like arguing the beauty of something with data. Hell, the reason it came up is because the news post was about animism and science. In fact, I'll quote what this person said as I think they said it well.

I go into an art museum and see a sculpture, or a painting, that *moves* me in some deeply emotional fashion. The sciences can tell me about the dimensions of what I'm looking at, the chemical composition, the mass, how the molecular surface structure reflects or refracts light in order for me to see color and texture, how my eyes focus light and send signals to my brain so that I am capable of seeing and interpreting the work of art in question, how neurons fire to cause an emotional reaction, etc.; there might even, someday, be a science that can explain how my particular history and emotional state at the moment interacts with the visual signals to trigger that emotional reaction.

Thus far, all that science is capable of, all it will *ever* be capable of, is quantifying the quantifiable and explaining mechanisms. It *cannot,* however, capture the experience and the emotion, the "meaning", to me, of what is occurring. A poem or a song or a ritual would capture the experience with much greater facility.

Or, for example, biochemistry can explain the chemical reactions that occur in the body when someone falls in love, and evolutionary psychology can tell us what kind of people we might be attracted to, and how this is evolutionarily advantageous and somewhat hard-wired into our neurons. What is does *not* do, thereby, is explain love, what it feels like to be in love, what love *means* to the people who are in it.

The Dawkinses of the world, of which you seem to be one, would say that this is because there is no such thing as *meaning* in these events: it's all just a firing of neurons, whether random or evolutionarily hard-wired, nothing to see here, move along. This, I suspect, is because religious traditions like Christianity have long tended to overstep their own bounds with regards to science (forbidding, for a while, the knowledge of the very Pagan scientists of Classical Greece, for instance), that folks like Dawkins feel they have to push back, go on the offensive, destroying anything smacking of religion or similar non-rationality before it tries to destroy science again.

I repeat what was said, because just like now, it was to someone who said that if there's faith, then of course there must be unicorns and fairies. Or vampires, in your case.

If you really wanted to be respectful, then drop it, and argue on the actual ideals of various faiths, rather than summing them all up as mere fairy tales. That's what they may be to you, but guess what. Those of us who actually have faith in something, or even just a bit of spirituality, would disagree. I find modern conservatives as abhorrent, heartless bastards who would sooner put children back to work then pay a dime in higher taxes and gives blowjobs to big corporations. I'm sure they don't see themselves in that way, so for me to argue on that is folly.

Also, here's the link (http://wildhunt.org/blog/2011/01/lets-hear-it-for-animism.html). If you want, feel free to read the discussions in the comments, or what not. You might learn something.

kiwi_tea

8th Feb 2011, 1:55 PM

Whoever said vampires had to be material?

The ideals of various faiths don't matter to this particular point because unevidenced faith *is* the problem.

The ideals deserve consideration. And countering when they are bad. But the problem still boils down to the fact that if we allow for believing in utterly unsubstantiated claims for no good reason, we're stuck in a vicious cycle of lies and misconceptions about what we can and cannot know.

Osama Bin Laden is as right about the metaphysical world as the Pope, and the Pope is as right as you or anybody else is. The truth is, it's an argument about angels on pinheads.

We don't know. It's the height of arrogance to pretend we do know. All we know is that there is a big physical world with no sign of gods. At a stretch it might not be enough to say, "There are no gods", but certainly enough to say, "There is no evidence of gods". There is no evidence upon which to even entertain these silly constructions. We either confess that much, or we commit to being liars.

Edit: As someone said in another conversation at another site, science tells you how things work, the mechanics behind the universe, the properties of things, but it does little for the experience of it, the emotion, the -meaning- of things. It is like arguing the beauty of something with data.

But all those thoughts, emotions, feelings, are material qualities of our brains. They are lovely. They are precious and essential. And they are understandable in scientific terms, hence why drugs work, why depression is a physical illness in neurological terms. Science can affect and change our subjective experiences, so we can hardly say it does "little for [our] experience". It can clearly do a hell of a lot. Science isn't all data and dryness, and subjective experience, although anchored firmly in neuroscience, is fantastic. Your point seems so... ...strange. Is a beautiful film any less beautiful just because it is a physical thing? Are our minds any less wonderful just because they are physical things? Why the distaste for this reality? Why does it anger you to think you might be a physical thing, that you are demonstrably, through science, a process of physical things?

And how is subjective experience, which does happen by dint of how our brains are constructed, amount to an argument for religion or spiritualism? The whole quote you posted seemed to make the very point it was "arguing" against: That experience is physically made, a process of physicality, not a non-physical occurence, not a spirit, just a process.

EDIT:

Wow. Just wow. That thread is so insulting in places it's not even funny. In particular the assumption that cultures with unevidenced claims about reality are inherently, for better or worse, weighted down with those claims. As if progress were impossible. One of my greatest pet hates is when Maori leaders - some of my own cultural leaders - get up and declare that Maori people are all inherently spiritual. It enrages me that they think they can disown me like that. That they accuse me of being culturally "broken" for not subscribing to bullshit like makutu (curses) or for not believing that my ancestors still exist as spirits. My ancestors are gone, there are no curses, and I am defiantly Maori for all that. Not just ethnically, but culturally: I have Maori songs, I have (some) Maori words, I have Maori legends, a Maori creation myth, I *am* Maori just as much as I *am* Pakeha (non-Maori cultures and ethnicities). Heck, I'm defiantly Polynesian, alongside Pakeha and Maori. To accuse me of being solely Pakeha because I do not entertain the ridiculously unsubstantiated? Bastards. I'm a proud Maori, non-Western atheist.

Oh, my god, it makes me angry.

Nekowolf

8th Feb 2011, 4:11 PM

No, faith is not a problem. Radicalism is a problem. Prejudice is a problem. Human stupidity is a problem. But faith is not. Sure, faith can be a catalyst, but it is not inherently an evil thing. The very fact that there are people who have faith, and are not raving lunatics, and who do believe in science, is precedence for that. But not only faith, either; territory, wealth, social or economic instabilities, they can be a catalyst to a wide-spread problem as well.

You see faith as a "problem" because it's something you reject. Because it's something you do not believe in, cannot believe has any true merits other than being a creation of the mind, and maybe it is, but that is entirely missing the point of faith in itself, or at least a perspective of faith that is NOT Christian. That it is what it can do for the individual that is important, not what they believe. You and so many other atheists that I have seen all seem to argue from one point. Christian versus science. That it's like all the religions of the world can be summed up with the idea of Christianity. They can't! It's like taking Democrats and Republicans, summing them up as American, and arguing on that.

You're right, we don't know, and a lot of people who have faith are willing to acknowledge that the great answer will always be a mystery, but we don't simply toss what we believe aside, either. Because, guess what! It's not as important to us as it may be to fundamentalist Christians, those religious types who almost -need- to know (or rather, believe they know) to press on; they're like the John Birch Society. They need to believe they know that there's a vast government conspiracy of Communism in order to keep the group sustained, because that's all their group is about. But that doesn't make us all like them, either. This idea that we all know that our gods are the right ones, or that they exist -in the way you expect us to believe they do- is completely false, it's not true, there are a variety of ideas on the nature of deities within our communities, because unlike some monotheistic communities, while we may disagree, we don't really perceive these other ideas on the nature of gods as some horrible blasphemy. "So we have different ideas, we're still brethren."

And while science can explain and alter those things, that doesn't give them meaning. It's like a word. A word only has meaning when there's a meaning applied to it. Science may recreate feelings and emotions, but that's all it does. It doesn't give them context, it doesn't give them meaning. It just makes. It can make a word that has no meaning to it. And faith is a subjective experience, that's how. It changes with each person. We each can have a different meaning of our faith. You rejected it, I found it and it felt right, someone else may have gained faith because it was comforting to them, someone else because they felt they needed it to press on with some terrible time in their life. Our reasons for having faith can differ, as well as what it means to us, what it's about, its context, faith is a very subjective thing. That is the point here. Science can recreate, but it does not give context or meaning. Those are abstract and intangible.

kiwi_tea

8th Feb 2011, 4:34 PM

Two small boys have loaded guns.
The first, let's call him Harmless Faith, lets off a shot at random and whoops for joy. No harm done.
The second, let's call him Radical Faith, lets off a shot at random and kills the neighbour's cat.
Out comes the mother, Reason, who is compelled to scold both the children for letting off shots at random.

You are proposing we only criticise the one that did the killing, based on the fact that he did harm, rather than based on the fact that what he did was unreasonable.

"Harm" is subjective. It's no good going after "harm". In many cultures it's "harmful" not to execute homosexuals. "Harm" isn't going to get anyone very far in a critique of unreasonable beliefs. Because they are harmful because they are unreasonable, their ability to do harm rests in faith. Faith - unreasonable prejudices about the nature of the world - are at the very core of the problem. Some cancers are benign. Sure. Sure. Doesn't make me love cancer.

kattenijin

8th Feb 2011, 4:48 PM

We don't know. It's the height of arrogance to pretend we do know. Haven't I already said pretty much the same?All we know is that there is a big physical world with no sign of gods. <snip> There is no evidence upon which to even entertain these silly constructions. We either confess that much, or we commit to being liars.As to the existence of evidence, I've already explained why I see evidence. Just because you are too closed-minded to accept those reasons as being evidence is not my problem, but yours. At least I have the ability to admit my convictions may be wrong, and have said as much.The first, let's call him Harmless Faith, lets off a shot at random and whoops for joy. No harm done.This can very well be my belief that there is a god. I express my views, and am content to thet them fall and germinate however that may be.[/quote]The second, let's call him Radical Faith, lets off a shot at random and kills the neighbour's cat.[/quote] This would be you, in you refusal to accept anything you can't quantitatively rationalize, destroying anything that dosen't fit in your own personal world view. Faith does not have to be religious in nature to be radicalised.

kiwi_tea

8th Feb 2011, 4:53 PM

I'm not sure whether we can really accept "Gosh everything is complex and works!" (shorter: "Gosh!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity_.2F_Lack_of_imagination)) as evidence, kattenijin. I mean, you're basically making the same argument as we see in Intelligent Design: "Gosh!"

Why is the fact that the world is big and works an argument for special creation by a (disembodied!?) consciousness?

EDIT:

This would be you, in you refusal to accept anything you can't quantitatively rationalize, destroying anything that dosen't fit in your own personal world view. Faith does not have to be religious in nature to be radicalised.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/walruskeeper/captain_hyperbole.jpg

OIC. What was the "cat" I killed, by the way? Oh wait. I forget I'm a "militant" atheist. My words are killing on a par with grenades. Really? I'm a radical? I killed a "cat"? What great unmentionable and unreasonable action have I taken on a par with executing gays and torturing non-Catholics?

Frankly, while all the shooting was going on I suspect the little boys' sister, Secular Humanist, was actually inside having a rowsing game of make believe - as make believe - with her teddies.

kattenijin

8th Feb 2011, 5:52 PM

It dosen't take religion to kill gays and torture people, regardless of their religion. Spanish Inquisition? About 5,000 people over 350 years. Soviet Union's "Great Purge" 1937-38? Between 1000 and 2500 people a DAY, not counting the millions starving in the Ukraine. (Joseph Stalin's regime, by the way was expressly atheistic) Killing of gays? Try the Nazis; again, not a religious group. Where have I ever stated I believe in the Catholic viewpoint? I don't believe anything close to it, and by the way, I am gay. What has been the effect of the collective "your" attacks on and disparagement of religion, mostly on Christianity (at least in the US and Europe)? Did you get rid of religion? Well, no. You got rid of Christianity's influence for the most part, even while many Christians have become live-and-let-live (albiet there are radical groups out there, but as I said before, you don't need religion to be radical). What it has mostly done is left a spiritual vacuum. One that is apparently being filled by Islam. You've arranged to replace a religion that hasn't done much to oppress women and gays in quite some time (again there are specific exceptions like the whole marriage issue) with one firmly dedicated to the oppression of one, and the extinction of the other. Yes, I firmly believe your "militant" athiesm has certainly had consequences.

And, you keep talking about evidence and intellectual honesty. To use the word "evidence",when you mean "irrefutable proof", is intellectual dishonesty of quite a high order. You your self have saidWe don't know. It's the height of arrogance to pretend we do know.which I pointed out that I myself have also said, yet somehow when you say it, it has more validity than when I do? Talk about dishonesty.

kiwi_tea

8th Feb 2011, 6:28 PM

Stalinism and Nazism share one thing in common with religion though... ...their foundations are unreasonable. Their atheism is beside the point, much as the fact that Hitler was a painter is beside the point.

A "spiritual vacuum"? Sorry? Islam is thrived because people are suffering from poverty, from hopeless material conditions ensured by current political structures. Spiritualism IS the vacuum, historically at least. It's just an empty space filler that pretends it's not. Moreoever, the recession in Christianity and other organised religions has only occurred in the weathier nations. Islam is taking off primarily in the poverty-stricken demographics. I don't know how you can blame forwarding an evidence-based worldview for the meteoric rise of an unevidenced religious belief. Atheists haven't arranged to replace Christianity with Islam, how could they? An evidence-based worldview actively opposes Islam much as it stands in opposition to other unevidenced beliefs.

I don't believe there are many "irrefutable proofs" outside of maths and logical formulae. There is only evidence, seldom proof. The entire of what I said was "We don't know. It's the height of arrogance to pretend we do know. All we know is that there is a big physical world with no sign of gods. At a stretch it might not be enough to say, "There are no gods", but certainly enough to say, "There is no evidence of gods". There is no evidence upon which to even entertain these silly constructions. We either confess that much, or we commit to being liars."

There's room for doubt in your beliefs. Certainly. But why a giant mind? Why a creator? Where has there ever been a disembodied mind, or even any sign of one? And why do minds/souls seem so deeply dependant upon physical structures.

(Anyway, I'm getting a bit snarky, so I'm going to take a rest for a few days. Apologies for the drop in my tone).

StarboardParoxysm

8th Feb 2011, 6:36 PM

Mod Hat On: Must Read:

As tempers seem to be getting heated and much of the discussion has turned into "you" statements, arguing at each other rather than the topic, I'm going to be applying a mandatory 24 Hour This Thread Has Been Godwinned Time Out.

If you have posted on this thread within the last 24 hours before my post here, you must wait until 24 hours have passed since my post here to post again on this thread. This will also give new posters a chance to participate.

This means that kiwi_tea, kattenijin, Nekowolf, Oaktree, and myself (yes, me too - I'm not posting here as part of the debate but with my mod hat on) are not to post on this topic until 24 hours have passed since this post of mine here.

After 24 hours, if you decide to continue with the debate, remember to be kind, courteous, and respectful to your fellow debaters, even if (especially if) you don't agree with their viewpoint. The point here is to trade thoughts, feelings, evidence, views, etc., in a free exchange of ideas... you don't have to change anyone's mind, just do your best to put your thoughts into words for others to respond to. But you do need to be nice to it, and remember to debate the topic and not the other debaters. Or else I will call you master debaters, and remember, master debating makes you grow hair on your palms from all that furious typing. :heyhey:

Black_Barook!

8th Feb 2011, 11:09 PM

*Walks into thread and notices that it's empty. Beings to build a mosque and prays*

:rofl:

kiwi_tea

14th Feb 2011, 3:59 AM

Hehe. Hey there. Whatcha praying for?

Shoosh Malooka

15th Feb 2011, 5:30 AM

I can't participate because I can't wrap my tiny brain around this nebulous topic. All I have is thesaurus.com to throw the deception that I am more savvy than I really am. Thanks for making me feel like a monkey. Now, what books have you guys read to get to this level of articulate thinking? I wanna play, too, and I've got some spare time in addition to reading the Bible.

kiwi_tea

15th Feb 2011, 5:49 AM

Don't talk yourself down so much, Shoosh. :) I recommend reading the big paperback Penguin Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Penguin-Classics/product-reviews/0141441518/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1) edited by David Norton, including the introduction and annotations in the back. Norton is a scholar who spent many years editing that edition. Alan Musgrave's Commonsense, Science, and Skepticism (http://www.amazon.com/Common-Sense-Science-Scepticism-Introduction/dp/0521436257/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297748639&sr=1-1) is a very good, easy-to-read introduction to historic theories of knowledge. Beyond that I recommend learning about the different arguments about the future of philosophy and science. Paul M Churchland's Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Consciousness-Contemporary-Introduction-Philosophy/dp/0262530740/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) is a bit dated (it's about 30 years old), but it's a very simple and solid introduction to the mind-body problem.

A good history of the Bible is handy, too. Norton is good for this. But this assumes a debate between only Christian mysticism and materialism. The reality is much broader, and it is fun and interesting to learn about other religions. For that I recommend asking about texts in the All Other Religions thread. ^_^

Shoosh Malooka

16th Feb 2011, 10:40 AM

Thank you, kiwi_tea. I will go with Common Sense, Science, and Skepticism. I can only offer in return The Transparent Self by Sidney M. Jourard. But it is only really effective if you don't know yourself yet, as that is what half the book is about. Also try Brain Sex if you want some insight on how humans think. Warning: It very often reads like a medical journal - tedious but necessary, and makes minimal effort to be fun.

Oaktree

16th Feb 2011, 3:04 PM

I'm taking a philosophy of mind class right now and we're using The Nature of Mind edited by David Rosenthal. It is a compilation of excerpts of various "modern" and contemporary philosophers' works regarding mind. I prefer primary sources over books that parse philosophers' ideas for you, so I like this book quite a bit, but I guess you may or may not feel the same. It's about 20 years old, so it's slightly more recent than the one kiwi_tea recommended, though not by a whole lot. But philosophy doesn't change that quickly, so I don't think it's a problem.

A lot of my philosophical views are a personal synthesis of my scientific background with philosophy classes I've taken, so it's hard for me to recommend books. I can tell you that Kant is a good place to go for epistemology, but he is notoriously difficult to read and I don't want to scare you off of philosophy by recommending such dense and convoluted material when you aren't yet familiar with the history and concepts that it is based in. I can tell you that most modern philosophy is a response to Rene Descartes' Meditations, so that might be a good place to start. I just read that for class and I wouldn't call it an exceptionally difficult work.

I would also recommend talks at www.ted.com. I've seen a handful so far and all of them have been quite good. I would recommend names such as Sam Harris, Dennis Dutton, Steven Pinker, and VS Ramachandran. Just look around and see what you find interesting, you really can't go wrong on that site.

kiwi_tea

16th Feb 2011, 10:26 PM

Also, Shoosh, if you want the strongest sort of duelist/idealist argument out there to compare with all this reductive materialism, I'd recommend reading the contemporary philosopher Peter Hacker. He is a language philosopher, and tries to argue that neuroscience is a bewitching incoherent discipline. I find his arguments incredibly unconvincing, but I haven't seen a stronger duelist/idealist stance than his. On the side of the materialists I think the strongest arguments that I've seen are coming from the Churchlands, Patricia and Paul. The fact that duelism has such weak arguments and that the human mind has such an essentially physical basis as far as we can tell is another of the reasons why I believe that agnostic atheism is the only defensible position for me to hold - I am such a physical thing, as wonderful as I feel, I am not transcendent and I've never been given a good basis for believing in transcendence or divinity, not any better reason than for believing in vampires and unicorns. (Hi Neko! :lovestruc )

Unfortunately, where Paul Churchland wrote an introduction to his thesis for the Average Joe (the book I recommended above), Hacker hasn't deigned to make his stance more comprehensible to readers not familiar with Wittgensteinian language philosophy. You can read a synopsis of his position here (http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1583). One of the comments on that thread really sums things up hilariously, too: "Dr. Hacker: show me a person or mind without a brain, please." Honestly, though, I think Hacker's arguments are so incredibly weak it probably wouldn't do you any harm to just ignore them if you find them too hard to follow. Of course, Oaktree might disagree that Hacker has the strongest dualist/idealist stance, and there might be some dualist/idealist lurkers with other recommendations as well.

Firmly recommend Descartes' Meditations, alongside Oaktree, it's a short and really enjoyable read.

Oaktree

16th Feb 2011, 11:08 PM

To be honest, I haven't read a lot of dualistic material. I'm actually taking that philosophy of mind class to shore up some of the holes in the breadth of my philosophical knowledge. I've read several accounts of materialism of varying types, and one of neutral monism (Spinoza), but only Descartes from the perspective of dualism. Well, maybe not only Descartes, but all other arguments for dualism I've encountered have generally been from people who want to believe in dualism but don't necessarily have the ability to logically argue that position. I've encountered the Churchlands before and I agree that their arguments are persuasive. It dovetails nicely with the determinism and reductionism that I believe in (harr harr). I haven't fully decided whether I agree yet, but I'm still sort of feeling my way around in philosophy trying to make up my mind on a lot of things. I also heard about them through a secondary source, so I haven't read more than a small excerpt of their writing yet.

kiwi_tea

16th Feb 2011, 11:37 PM

I think this here is a brilliant response to Hacker, too:

“Certainly by far the best contributions to philosophy of mind in the last century have come from analytical philosophers, philosophers in the tradition of Frege and Wittgenstein. Because many such philosophers are superb at analyzing the deeper structure of language, they often fall into the trap of analyzing the conscious mind as if it were itself a linguistic entity, based not on dynamical self-organization in the human brain, but on a disembodied system of rule-based information processing. At least they frequently assume that there is a “content level” in the human mind that can be investigated without knowing anything about “vehicle properties,” about properties of the actual physical carriers of conscious content. The vehicle-content distinction for mental representations certainly is a powerful tool in many theoretical contexts. But our best and empirically plausible theories of representation, those now so successfully employed in connectionist and dynamicist models of cognitive functioning, show that any philosophical theory of mind treating vehicle and content as anything more than two strongly interrelated aspects of one and the same phenomenon simply deprives itself of much of its explanatory power, if not of its realism and epistemological rationality.”

- Being No One: The Self-model Theory of Subjectivity, Thomas Metzinger

I'll have to read more by this Metzinger chap!

Black_Barook!

18th Feb 2011, 1:41 AM

Hehe. Hey there. Whatcha praying for?

Political stability with an expansion of individual freedoms.
The harmonization between the Law and Spirit of Islam in Arabia.

But right now, I'm praying for a decent internet connection. *Glares at Viva wireless router*

Black_Barook!

9th Mar 2011, 1:43 PM

Wow! I just discovered another power of mine! The ability to stun threads for a few weeks!

DemonfireNinja

2nd May 2011, 2:45 PM

+Hi, I have had a lets say "interesting" education as far as belief goes, I was born in Australia a predominantly Christian country but neither of my parents was Christian or any other religeon that I could give a name to (more on that later). My father is a hard core Atheist, as in he believes that their is nothing more than he sees and that anyone who believes otherwise is insane or intelectually disabled, and my mother is a more spiritualist person with beliefs that don't really follow any specific religeon but are very much akin to Bhuddism. As such I have not really been exposed to Christianity or any mainstream religeons, however I have researched them as part of my attempts to find my own path.
Upon great research into other systems of belief I found nothing that looked encouraging, I hated every religeon that I looked into but I wasn't sure why, but eventually I realized, the problem wasn't that I disagreed with the beliefs, it was that they WERE beliefs in the first place. I realized that in order to believe in something you must be able to believe, and that is something that I could not do, so then I thought back on the reason for most of the death, suffering and evils of the world - past and present and I found that the answer was clear, people did most of these things because of what they BELIEVED. It was apon this realization that I discovered that the best thing to believe is NOTHING, that the best thing a person can do(in my opinion) is to only trust what they KNOW, not what they BELIEVE if you are a good person and you only trust what you know then you can do no evil (or very little). Because when a person trusts what they believe they can do things that I, or other people can consider to be evil, they do something believing it wont hurt someone or believing that it is the right thing to do but can later discover that it did hurt someone or that it was the wrong thing to do. However if you only do something if you know that it will not hurt someone, if you know that it is the right thing to do, then it eliminates the posibility of injury of mistake. This chain of thought also made me realize that the only way that I could achieve this would be to admit everything that I did not know, so I admit that I don't know what happens after you die, I admit that I don't know how the universe works and I admit that I have no clue on if there is any higher power or not, this way I believe is better than any system of belief where people pretend that they know these things because a book tells them that they do or because they think that there is nothing or that they know the secrets of the universe just because their beliefs say so. So remember you can't KNOW something that you BELIEVE.

Nekowolf

3rd May 2011, 8:04 PM

Knowing can be just as bad. Because if you so whole-heartedly believe in something you "know," then that is essentially the same as "believing" in something. You could be utterly wrong, but you "know" you are right, and so must be right, because you "know" it. If I know the government is an evil force who must be deconstructed into anarchy lest we all fall into a dictatorial system, then what happens? You get anti-radical extremists groups. In some ways, like this, "knowing" and "believing" are one in the same.

While I understand the distinction you are trying to make, it is not so simple. But I will admit, that the greatest point you make, which is what I absolutely agree with, is admitting what you do not know. However, you must also realize that admittance of not-knowing is not necessarily counter to belief. It may be easiest to believe and absolutely know, together, but that does not mean that they are mutually exclusive.

kiwi_tea

6th May 2011, 7:43 PM

Theories of knowledge have always interested me, especially as work in neurology and biology has come into the field. I sometimes like to think of a continuum between knowledge and faith, where knowledge is stuff like "1 + 1 = 2" and faith is stuff like "A gorilla lives in that table" or "I believe in this god." Things fall somewhere between the evidenced and obvious, and the baseless and absurd. We can say with complete confidence that under most conditions 1 + 1 = 2. We can say with almost absolute confidence there is no evidence of gods. Those are knowledge. We can say with perhaps moderate confidence that there are no gods, and that's belief. We can say with absolutely no confidence that a god exists, and that's faith.

Knowledge is tricky. Belief is trickier. Faith is risky. I like to think of what physicist Richard Feynman had to say about Physics: "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

CmarNYC

6th Jun 2011, 8:25 PM

I want to talk a little about whether or not faith, or atheism, is a choice. In my opinion the parallel with homosexuality is pretty close.

In my own case, I was raised as a Unitarian, mostly in the southern USA where religion is pretty pervasive. I'm old enough that I remember having to recite prayers in the classroom, and participating in school activities for Christmas. While Unitarianism has been described as 'organized atheism' with some justification, I still have to say I had a religious background when you include all the societal and personal influences I grew up with. Certainly as a child, and at least into my early teens, I believed in God.

As I got older I increasingly questioned that faith, simply because I saw no evidence for God. Just the opposite, as a matter of fact - so much in life is random, there's so much suffering in the world, etc. I began to define myself as Agnostic, and for the last couple of decades as an Atheist.

Anyway, the point is that at no time did I sit down and decide, "I think I'll be an Atheist." It came to me as a result of logic. My life would probably be easier if I belonged to a church and believed in a higher power; certainly I wouldn't have old friends who think I'm going to hell. I simply can't NOT be an Atheist because I can't force myself to believe in a deity any more than a gay person can force themselves to love someone of the opposite sex.

Maybe mileage varies on this, but to me faith, or lack of it, is something that isn't a concious choice, whether it's based on upbringing or life experience or logic or whatever. This is not to say people can't choose to convert to another religion that appeals to them more for social or whatever conciously controlled reasons - it's a much bigger divide between Christian and Atheist than, say, Baptist and Episcopalian.

StarboardParoxysm

6th Jun 2011, 8:33 PM

I'm not really an athiest but agnostic-ish, but I agree with you, Cmar. I was raised in the southern USA. My grandfather was a southern Baptist preacher. I was made to go to church, and until I had grown up a bit, I did so rather fervently, believing blindly what I had been told.

My falling out with faith happened, strangely enough, when I was in Christian school and was going through some Really Unpleasant Shit - I sat in school all day being told how special every person is in the eyes of God, and how He loves each and every one of us... And yet that was completely at odds with my actual life, where it was obvious that any kind, compassionate, loving god was an utterly ridiculous concept.

I still believe in a very nebulous... something... some greater force, not quite an entity, something beyond and unknowable. When I was a child, I think I was closer to a proper atheist - no God, no spirits, just... things are what they are.

Perhaps I never would have come to the conclusions I did if I hadn't been facing such personal hardship. But something tells me I would have. I can't understand how a thinking person can see so many people going through such awful shit in life and have that picture of a Christian God... perhaps I could understand the vengeful, almost whimsically cruel Old Testament God... but the picture of God I was given as a child was so incredibly off from what life was like for me from an early age that it was just impossible to keep up the lie that I believed it.

CmarNYC

6th Jun 2011, 8:52 PM

It's one of the stereotypes of atheism, that people become embittered by some tragedy or hardship and are 'angry with God' and become Atheists. Like most stereotypes there's a little truth to it. Part of my personal conversion was losing a beloved cat who died at less than a year old after suffering for weeks with an incurable disease. May not sound like a lot to many people but one of my reactions was the conclusion, just like yours, that no self-respecting God would make a world full of so much pain inflicted randomly on innocent people and animals.

And like you, I also think I would have ended up an Atheist either way - the idea of a God who actually cares about us or the world makes no sense to me. At the same time I can understand why people do have faith, but most of the stuff about God working in mysterious ways strikes me as rationalization. Like us, they have deep beliefs and can't just up and change them.

Daisie

6th Jun 2011, 9:10 PM

Some people are very good at deceiving themselves, though. I have to think that for many educated, intelligent, otherwise-critically-thinking religious people, maintaining their faith MUST be something of a choice: they see only the "evidence" that confirms what they believe, and they are careful not to examine their beliefs too closely. It's difficult and scary to challenge a comfortable status quo, so why would they? It's like the idea that science and religion are separate, happily coexisting fields. Lots of people who trust the scientific method fail to apply skepticism and scientific reasoning to their beliefs about religion, completely ignoring the cognitive dissonance. I think sometimes it has to be choice, if a sort-of-maybe unconscious one.

(Cmar and HP, your experiences prove the saying, "God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good: pick two.")

Shoosh Malooka

6th Jun 2011, 9:51 PM

That is called cognitive dissonance. I'll try to illustrate:

There are two fraternities of equal status, the only difference is that one is easy to get into and the other is hard to get into.
A frat boy goes through all the humiliation to get into the harder one.
After he does, he cannot accept that the two fraternities are equal.
So he changes his belief that they are equal to a belief that the one he got into is the superior fraternity.
And to a degree he gains negative feelings toward the other frat and positive feelings toward his frat.

Whiterudder

6th Jun 2011, 10:13 PM

As Daisie says, it's quite possible not to question a belief, people do it all the time. Although I doubt many people think "Ok, I'm going to become an atheist", or "Ok, I'm going to become a Buddhist" or whatever else, what is a choice is challenging your existing beliefs. Will you choose to examine what you believe - whether that's a religion-related belief, or faith, or anything else - or will you choose to just live your life and ignore the question?
I think, particularly for HP, you didn't have that option, because your religious beliefs were directly challenged by your circumstances. There was a contradiction as clear as the nose on your face, you'd have to have been blind to ignore it. But for those who are brought up in, and live their lives within, the setting of one belief, and are never faced with something which really calls it into question? I think it's very easy to either choose to let your beliefs lie, because they ain't broke, or to deliberately examine them, on the principle that they might be.

CmarNYC

6th Jun 2011, 10:47 PM

@Daisie: I like your saying. :)

@whiterider: An excellent point. I had some similar thoughts in the past when dealing with someone who refused to host same-sex stories on a romance fiction website she ran, based on religious beliefs - I could accept that this is what she's been raised to think and she's entitled to her faith and her beliefs, but at some point she has to accept responsibility for her own attitudes and especially her actions which may be harmful to others, either by examining her beliefs and making a concious decision on how she's going to treat people, or by not examining them which is a decision as well.

kiwi_tea

7th Jun 2011, 12:20 AM

You know, as a gay guy and an atheist, I don't like the comparison with religion. I didn't reach homosexuality through logic, it is rather innate in me. Atheism is not innate in me, I simply found it the only reasonable position when I seriously gave my Christianity some thought, and measured it against the other religions around my community (mainly Wicca, Buddhism, Ratana, and Ba'hai, but I tried not to limit myself). I became an atheist for the same reason I became a vegetarian - the alternatives were not logically consistent with the world as I've come to know it. They were denials. They were drugs of a sort.

I could choose to become religious. I could choose to eat meat (maybe. it's been nearly a decade and I tend to vomit nowadays when I eat it, but with effort that could probably be reversed). I can't choose not to be gay.

With work, anyone can come up with a superficially plausible - or at least vague - religion that "empowers" them personally. With work I think they could believe it. I think atheism is more similar to vegetarianism than homosexuality - it's a sort of ethical decision in some ways. A decision to be humble, and less biocentric in one's understanding of the universe.

On A Very Different Note:

US voters still consider atheism the very, very, very, very worse trait for a presidential candidate: http://people-press.org/2011/06/02/republican-candidates-stir-little-enthusiasm/

A gay person is more electable than an atheist. That says a lot about the discrimination atheists face in the USA.

CmarNYC

7th Jun 2011, 2:20 AM

I have to disagree, at least for myself personally. I don't eat red meat, but I could choose to do so. Hell, mushrooms make me feel ill just to look at, but I can (and have when forced) choose to eat them. While I could choose to join a religion and talk, walk, and behave religiously, I could NOT choose to sincerely believe in God. There's a huge difference between the behavior and the belief. Unless I happen to run into a burning bush that talks or the equivalent, me believing in God, with work or otherwise, would be like persuading myself that the Earth is flat. Just not going to happen. Maybe in your case you could genuinely choose to become sincerely religious - I couldn't.

And yeah, I've seen those statistics and I'm very aware of the discrimination and the general attitude some people have towards Atheists, plus one of my pet peeves, the attitude that religion is the only viable basis of morality. I've never seen any evidence that religious people are any more or less moral or kind or generous than non-religious people.

Oaktree

7th Jun 2011, 11:07 PM

I don't think we can choose any of our beliefs or preferences. I think that believing in something that there is no evidence for requires a sort of blind faith that can't be restored once it is shaken. I also think that whether you believe those things is a matter of upbringing and one's nature. Those who are raised to be devout Christians, Muslims, etc. often take those beliefs to be foundational and unquestionable. They sometimes build the rest of their intellectual framework on the belief in God and the dogma of their religion.

It isn't just religious beliefs that can be foundational, though. I have certain foundational beliefs, too, and I am an agnostic atheist. For example, I am, philosophically, a materialist. I have tried to question that belief, but this is a fundamental concept that can't really be broken down further and logically examined. I see no logical reason to believe in the alternative, even though I have no logical reason to believe in materialism. You can be a materialist or an idealist, but arguments between the two schools of thought fly right past one another because these are ideas that can't be proven, but must be accepted to build up to other ideas. I don't think that every belief that people take as unquestionable is similarly fundamental, but people tend to get set in their ideas. As the philosopher David Hume says, beliefs are a matter of habit or convention. Once a person accepts faith over reason as an acceptable method of finding truth, for example, that person is unlikely to be swayed from that thinking.

I also think that each of us has a predisposition to certain ways of thinking. Some people are born with an analytical mind or the predisposition to an analytical mind. Those people are unlikely to accept faith alone as an acceptable means of finding truth. Others are more inclined to faith-based thinking. Some people like to feel like there are things about the universe that don't hold with conventional logic. As much as I am inclined to dismiss religious belief, I will say that some people can have a more even blending of the two. I have had one professor who was a very intelligent man, but also a devout Christian. His class was all about faith and reason and the blending of the two. I understood what he taught about some faith being necessary, as there are fundamental beliefs that you cannot come to logically, as I was talking about above, but I can't say I understand how he comes to his belief in God. It seems too much of a leap to me. Nonetheless, I do respect his formidable intelligence.

tongues

2nd Aug 2011, 6:03 PM

Our atheist/moral philopher friends do realize that their beliefs are a form of religion, right? Religion is simply a packaged bundle of beliefs and practice principals. (Though churches would tell you otherwise)

People confuse the term religion with something to do with a god-like/creator overseer and/or moral pattern. Religion is a collection of thoughts and feelings and personal choices that are collated and labelled, and I know of absolutely no one who is 100% devoted to every dogmatic aspect of their religion. It's not practically possible.

As a linguist, I find this snippet- paraphrased from the Christian Bible- to be fascinating: "Faith is the evidence of things unseen." The word evidence is key. Evidence can be taken to court to prove a fact or pattern of facts. So someone in history belived that their faith can be expressed in terms literal enough to base legal or contractual assertions upon. Fascinating. A bit daring for me to take on in an argument, but semantically amazing just the same.

Humanism and moral philosophy is just too arbitrary for my tastes. These sciences are as fraught with arbitrary arguments as any religion; just as fractious too.
On the one hand, I see too much organization and beauty in the natural world to believe in the shake the box long enough with just the right coincidences and life appears theory. Then again, what humanity has done to the world and to themselves is beyond conscionable credulity too. (And I assert very strongly that religion is a man-made institution!)

Religions are too full of their own self-righteousness. I mean nothing as a person to any religion in the world- and don't tell me otherwise because I have studied religion and observed the religious literally all over the world. Religion pisses me off because it is a form of coercion. Any righteous religion would state their claims and let me come or go as I choose without argument. They don't: I must swallow the pill whole or be returned to the unwashed masses of the unbelievers.

Religion does not indicate a morale compass. All humans choose what to worship: Their humanism; their opinions; their concept of creator; their own materialistic desires... I know people, regardless of their professed religious faith that are such absolute statistic-spouting, rabid sports fan that they undeniably worhip at the ball park every chance they get. For others it's money; still others sex and drugs and rock-n-roll.

Moralism? Want to break it down to the most elemental? Are murders moral? No? Then why do they almost always kill any pedophile in the general prison population? It's their scruples. Humans have strong personal scruples, and tend toward very weak, arbitrary morals. Let's be honest with ourselves. Being imperfect is part of the thrill and challenge of being human and being alive.

Being perfect sounds boring... what would I do with myself? What do I strive to learn, to do, to experience?

simsample

3rd Aug 2011, 12:44 AM

Our atheist/moral philopher friends do realize that their beliefs are a form of religion, right? Religion is simply a packaged bundle of beliefs and practice principals.
Not sure I'd entirely agree with that, as religion usually refers to an organized packaged bundle of beliefs that has some kind of social/ public aspect (rituals, public meetings, feasts, scriptures and so on).

Also, I would suppose that there are many variations on atheism/ agnosticism/ irreligion, but if you do not have a belief in a supreme deity then you do not necessarily believe that the supreme deity does not exist, you may just have a lack of belief that it does exist.

After all, why should someone have to have a conviction about something that they have seen no evidence of, or even that they are not aware of?

kiwi_tea

3rd Aug 2011, 1:27 AM

Atheists tend to be metaphysical materialists (ie, they believe that the world is composed primarily of matter sans a mystical or spiritual underpinning), but that's not the same thing as being religious. An atheist/agnostic's metaphysical materialism is not just some a priori assumption about the world, it is a conclusion drawn from religion's endless failure and materialistic science's constant success in explaining the nature of the world we inhabit. It has its basis in centuries of learning and revision. Metaphysical materialism is only a refuge for the humble, who wish to say, "What we can know is limited to what we can access and make coherent discussion of."

I read a brilliant quote just the other day on this theme, from a professor of philosophy, Troy Jollimore:

‎"If the concept of 'God' is genuinely empty, as it needs to be if evidence and rational criticism are to be considered irrelevant to God-talk, then in a quite literal sense people who talk about God cannot say and do not know what they are talking about."

Is skeptical humanism a religion? Only in the loosest, most liberally misinterpreted sense of the word. Only in the same sense that someone might say cooking, reading, or being dedicated to your favourite TV show is a religion. A good linguist doesn't tend to abuse terms by appealing to their most marginal definitions, so I'm calling your bluff. You're not a linguist, at least certainly not professionally! The common and most useful definitions of the word "religion" specify superhuman or supernatural beliefs as part of such belief systems. I would submit that it's intellectually dishonest in the extreme to conflate a common definition with a marginal colloquial definition of a word merely to discredit your opposition. ...and it does discredit skeptical humanism to call it a "religion". It implies it sits in the same nebulous, messy, goobledegook basket as Christian theology - resting impotently and arrogantly on a priori assertions with no evidence in their favour and ample evidence disputing their claims. In philosophical terms "religion" deserves to be used as a pejorative, it is a very nasty thing to call any belief system. It is an even nastier thing for a belief system to actually be.

The idea of "evidence" for faith is quite an insult to the concept of "evidence" at all - a feeling, a deep-seated prejudice - is Faith itself. Evidence is potentially falsifiable, or it is evidence of nothing except one's dedication to motivated reasoning. One must always ask: "If I am wrong, how would I know it?"

I certainly don't worship Humanism, I merely practise it.

I worship Emma Thompson.

Nekowolf

3rd Aug 2011, 3:53 AM

"What we can know is limited to what we can access and make coherent discussion of."

And yet, so many seem to not practice such an idea. They are certain there is nothing to spiritualism or to any religion. If one cannot see past the limits, then how can one have such a discussion of certainty, without being faithful in their ideology? They can't.

kiwi_tea

3rd Aug 2011, 4:06 AM

And yet, so many seem to not practice such an idea. They are certain there is nothing to spiritualism or to any religion.

Are you suggesting we can access and scrutinise spiritualism and religiosity using our rational toolbox? Are you sure you want to do that?

The reason for the relative certainty is religion and spiritualism's failure to yield results when scrutinised carefully, with checks in place to curtail our biases for or against + lack of any basis for many of the claims in the first place. The whole reason spiritualism and religiosity flees into the hand-waving territories of "This is beyond logic and reasoning!" is to avoid taking intellectual responsibility for the ideas and propositions they assert about existence/nature/human nature. I would think the last thing a spiritualist would advocate is accepting that there are limits to what we can claim to know about the universe! Precisely because they've staked their interests in claiming to knows things well across the boundaries of what we can currently know about the universe with any reliability!

EDIT:

I mean, let me ask you: If neuroscience proves adequate for explaining the way our minds work in mechanical terms, perhaps with some weird emergent properties spun out of those mechanics (but not separate from them), would spiritualists say, "Well, the idea of an immaterial soul is debunked"? Or would they retreat further into the ineffable?

Basically, does spiritualism entertain the idea that it might be wrong? Or if proven wrong, will if just confabulate a vaguer reason as to how it might be right? Is spiritualism an "unsinkable rubber duck" of irrationality?

The fact that animism exists suggests it is. What reason is there to imagine brainless things like trees could even have spirits? None. What might such spirits even be? Who knows! By what possible mechanism might they exist and persist? None that we know of! But that doesn't stop animists from making these claims!

I mean, a rational person can only sort of laugh and say "Yeah, could be!" Could be an invisible purple gorilla hiding in your table, too. Could be.